20-000013 Palm Beach County School Board vs. Bernard Jean Louis Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, April 14, 2021.

Summary: The school board proved by clear and convincing evidence that the employee, a school bus driver, violated several provisions of school board policy authorizing his termination pursuant to the progressive discipline policy in the parties? CBA.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

P ALM B EACH C OUNTY S CHOOL B OARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 0013

B ERNARD J EAN L OUIS ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RD ER

A final hearing was held in this matter via Zoom Conference on January 6

and 7, 2021, before Robert L . Kilbride, an A dministrative L aw J udge at the

Division of Administrative Hearings ( Ñ DOAH Ò ) .

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

V. Danielle Williams, Esquire

School District of Palm Beach County

Office of the General Counsel

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard , Suite C - 331

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

For Respondent: Charles D. Thomas, Esquire

Thompso n & Thomas, P . A .

1801 Indian Road , Suite 100

West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether the School District of Palm Beach County properly suspended

Respondent for 15 days and , subsequently , terminated his employment for an

incident at the bus facility compound on December 12, 2018.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On October 29, 2019, a Notice of Recommendation for Termination of

Employment was sent to Bernard Jean Louis ( Ñ Louis Ò or Ñ Respondent Ò ) by

Superintendent of Schools, Donald E. Fennoy , II.

Taking exception to his proposed termination, Louis submitted a Request

for Administrative Hearing on December 18, 2019.

After conducting discovery and filing several motions and requests for

continuances, the case was set for a final h earing beginning January 6, 2021.

In support of the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Amended Pre -

Hearing Stipulation on November 30, 2020. The administrative hearing

involving disputed facts began on January 6, 2021 , via Zoom Conference.

Petition er submitted the testimony of Respondent, as well as Cynthia

Holloman, Gary Mosely, Jeanette Williams, Elbert Niston, Dorinda

Patterson, Jose Pacheco, Bonnie Smith, Leatrice Burroughs, Casandra

Joseph, Carol Bello, Shane Searchwell , and Carol Stewart Marti n.

Respondent submitted the testimony of Bernard Jean Louis, Cynthia

Holloman, Shane Searchwell, Jose Pacheco, Marvin Jackson, Donald

Fennoy, II, Vicki Evans - Par é , Leatrice Burroughs , and Shannon Armstrong.

Petitioner Ô s Exhibits 2, 4 , 5, 7 , 8, 11 through 20, 32 through 34, 36 through

47, 49 through 51, 53, 56, 58 , 59 , 64 , 65, 69 through 77, and 89 through 96

were admitted into evidence. Respondent Ô s E xhibits 1 through 11 and 13

through 19 were also admitted into evidence.

The Transcript of the final hear ing was filed with DOAH on January 25,

2021. P roposed r ecommended o rders were timely filed by both parties after

an extension of time was granted. 1

All references to statutes, rules , or policies are to those in effect when the

conduct, action , or omissio n occurred.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant

fact:

Stipulated Facts

1. Respondent was hired by the School District of Palm Beach County

( Ñ District Ò ) on March 9, 2007.

2. At all times relevant to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was

employed as a School Bus Driver I at the Royal Palm Beach Transportation

Facility ( Ñ Royal Palm Facility Ò ) with the District.

3 . Employee and Labor Relations commenced an investigation on

September 9, 2019, that was assigned C ase N o. 19/20 - 026.

4 . O n October 29, 2019, Respondent was notified that the s uperintendent

intended to recommend a 15 - day suspension without pay and termination of

Respondent Ô s employment to the Palm Beach County School Board ( Ñ School

Board Ò ) at the November 20, 2019 , School Board m eeting.

5 . O n December 18, 2019 , Respondent requested a hearing at DOAH

regarding the suspension and termination of his employment.

1 Instead of recapping or summarizing the relevant and material testimony of witnesses , one

of the parties submitted a P roposed R ecommended O rder with Findings of Fact that included

and recited significant provisions of the hearing Transcript verbatim. This was not helpful

and is contrary to the custom and practice at DOAH . This practice is discouraged in the

future.

Facts Presented At The Hearing

6 . The School Board operates, controls, and supervises the District ,

p ursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section

1001.32, Florida Statutes . Petitioner has the authority to discipline

employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1 ) , Florida Statutes .

7 . Respondent was an experienced bus dri ver who had been trained in the

proper method of interacting with supervisors, co - workers , and students , and

exercising good professional judgment, and knew to follow certain rules,

policies and directives.

8 . Respondent Ô s employment was governed by: a col lective bargaining

agreement ( Ñ CBA Ò ) between the District and Service Employees International

Union/Florida Public Services Union ( Ñ SEIU/FPSU Ò ) ( SB Ex. 77 ; R es pÔt

Ex. 11) ; School Board Policies (SB Ex s . 70 - 74) ; Florida law (SB Ex. 75) ; and

the School Bus Op erators and Bus - Attendant Handbook (SB Ex. 76).

9 . Respondent was notified that he was being recommended for

termination due to insubordination, ethical misconduct , and failure to follow

polic ies , rule s , or directive s when he screamed and yelled at Senior

Transportation Coordinator Cynthia Holloman ( Ñ Holloman Ò ) ; used profanity,

impolite language , and derogatory terms directed at Holloman which were

heard by other employees as well ; and left a school bus unattended in the

middle of the bus driveway. SB Ex. 1 ; SB Ex. 4 at p. SB000022 - 35 ; and Pet Ô r

Admin . Compl .

1 0 . Holloman testified at the hearing and her deposition transcript was

filed. She was the s enior c oordinator at the Royal Palm F acility on December

12, 2018. However, the assignment of buses to the dri vers was primarily

handled by another employee, Bonnie Smith ( Ñ Smith Ò ) .

1 1 . As background, Holloman outlined that bus drivers would report to

the facility in the morning to pick up their bus. If the driver Ô s regularly

assigned bus was down or inoperative , the bus driver would be re assigned

and take a substitute bus.

1 2 . The bus drivers were required to perform a pre - trip inspection each

day to look for issues with their assigned bus. The pre - trip inspection would

include, among other things, the driver s starting up their assigned bus.

1 3 . If the driver discovered an issue with the bus, the driver was required

to fill out a form , bring it inside , and a mechanic would be assigned to fix the

problem. If the problem could not be corrected, the driver would be assigned

another bus.

1 4 . If another bus was not available , then Petitioner Ô s staff would assign

an available driver a Ñ double route Ò to cover the route . If a mechanic

determined the bus was not safe to operate , then a bus would not be put on

the roa d.

1 5 . Respondent testified that the morning of December 12, 2018 , was an

unusually cold morning. He had been assigned a bus that he believed did not

have a working heater. His indirect concern with the heat not working was

that the defroster linked to it would not function properly, creating a

potential safety risk for the bus driver and the passengers.

1 6 . That morning , Respondent reported the problem with his assigned bus

to Smith, and told her that he would not drive the bus in that condition.

1 7 . Ma rvin Jackson ( Ñ Jackson Ò ), a bus driver at the Royal Palm Facility,

also had a problem with the heater not functioning in his bus.

1 8 . Jackson testified that he would carry a rag or paper towels to wipe the

windshield when driving. He took this action to o perate his bus safely.

Jackson indicated that on the morning of December 12, 2018 , he also went

into the office to complain about his heat not working properly.

19 . Leatrice Burroughs ( Ñ Burroughs Ò ) , another bus driver, testified that

she also went to see Holloman on the morning of December 12, 2018, to

complain about the heater on her bus not working properly .

2 0 . Holloman was in the dispatch office with Burroughs . Holloman was

attempting to locate a bus with a functioning heater for Burroughs when

Respo ndent arrived at the dispatch office. Holloman acknowledged that if the

bus defroster was not working and the front windshield was fogging up, it

would create a dangerous condition for the bus drivers.

2 1 . When Holloman was inside with Burroughs, Holloma n heard

Respondent outside raising his voice and cursing at Smith. Holloman agreed

that Burroughs was in position where she could have heard Respondent

using any profane or inappropriate language outside.

2 2 . Holloman heard Respondent cursing at Smith te lling her h e would not

drive the bus without heat.

2 3 . Burroughs testified that she did not hear R espondent swearing or

using any profanity.

2 4 . Holloman then spoke directly with Respondent and explained to him

that there were no buses with heat availab le for him. He angrily responded

and told her she was Ñ full of sh _t , Ò in front of Burroughs. Burroughs denied

hearing Respondent say that. 2

2 5 . Holloman related that during this same conversation Respondent , told

her to Ñ go f _ck herself Ò and that she inst ructed him to punch out and go

home.

2 6 . Holloman also stated that Respondent called her a Ñ b _tch , Ò and said he

would park his bus and Ñ sit on the clock . Ò

2 7 . When Holloman asked him if he was refusing to do his route that

morning he replied Ñ I Ô m not gon na do my route. I Ô m gonna sit here and I Ô m

gonna get paid for it. Ò

2 8 . She responded that she was not going to pay him if there was work

available and he was not willing to do the work. In response, Respondent told

her Ñ to go f_ck herself . Ò

29 . Notably, d u ring this encounter with Holloman, Respondent made no

mention or complaint to her about any problem with the defroster , nor did he

claim that the bus was unsafe to drive.

2 It was not clear from the evidence what Burroughs Ô s proximity was to Holloman and

Respondent during this discussion .

3 0 . Gary Mosley ( Ñ Mosley Ò ) , one of Holloman Ô s supervisors, arrived at the

bus facilit y at some point after the heated exchange began . Respondent came

back into the office. Holloman claims that , in the presence of Mosley,

Respondent swore at her , at which time she stood up from her desk and told

him she was not afraid of him.

3 1 . Mosley t estified. He did not recall Louis swearing at Holloman, while

he was in the office . However, when he spoke with Respondent outside,

Respondent admitted that he said Ñ f _c k you Ò to Holloman before Mosley

arrived.

3 2 . Holloman also stated that Jackson was si tting in a chair right outside

her office and could hear everything being said, including Respondent using

profanity with her. Jackson testified that he never heard Respondent use any

profanity that day.

3 3 . Jeanette Williams, a fellow bus driver, testif ied that she heard

Respondent say he would not drive that Ñ piece of sh_ t Ò bus. Pet Ô r Ex. 23 .

3 4 . Dorinda Patterson ( Ñ Patterson Ò ) , another bus driver, provided a

written statement for these proceedings. Patterson said that when

Respondent left the office a rea she heard him say he was Ñ not driving that

piece of sh_t bus , Ò because it was Ñ too f _cki ng cold . Ò

3 5 . Casandra Joseph ( Ñ Joseph Ò ) , who was a union steward, testified. She

was contacted soon after the incident by Holloman regarding Respondent Ô s

conduc t on the morning of December 12, 2018. She was already at the Royal

Palm Facility that morning.

3 6 . She spoke to Respondent immediately after the incident. He seemed

very upset, was raising his voice, yelling and cursing , and used the word

Ñ sh_t. Ò However , Joseph did not hear what Respondent had said to Holloman

earlier .

3 7 . Jose Pacheco ( Ñ Pacheco Ò ) , the bus shop foreman at the facility,

testified. He was responsible for maintenance o f the school buses. He testified

that bus drivers are supposed to conduc t pre - and post - trip inspections of

their buses. If a bus driver has an issue during the pre - trip inspection they

are required to contact dispatch , and dispatch will contact maintenance to see

if they can resolve the matter. If maintenance cannot resolve t he matter , they

refer the bus driver back to dispatch.

3 8 . Pacheco was present on December 12, 2018, when Respondent

complained about the heat not working on his bus. Pacheco testified clearly

and distinctly that Respondent was yelling and using profanity . Respondent

drove his bus in an area of the bus driveway and left it there, obstruct ing

other bus traffic .

39 . His testimony was consistent with the testimony of other employees

and was uncontroverted. The undersigned found his recollection of the

incid ent to be particularly unbiased, credible , and persuasive.

4 0 . Of significance, Louis never mentioned to Pacheco that he would not

drive his bus because the bus windows would fog up mak ing the bus unsafe.

Rather, it was Pacheco Ô s opinion that Louis was ups et because it was too cold

and his bus heater did not work properly .

4 1 . Smith , a t ransportation c oordinator , also testified . Smith Ô s

responsibilities included helping bus drivers get their buses on the road ,

helping with directions, and assisting bus driv ers with their paperwork.

4 2 . Smith was assigned to the Royal Palm F acility. Prior to becoming a

t ransportation c oordinator, she was a bus driver.

4 3 . Smith testified that on December 12, 2018, she witnessed Respondent

screaming at Holloman , stating tha t he did not want to drive his assigned

bus because it was too cold. She overheard Holloman advise Respondent that

if he was not going to drive his assigned bus, then he would need to clock out.

4 4 . Smith testified that during his heated exchange with Hol loman,

Respondent said Ñ he was not driving a f_ cking cold bus. Ò And then he told

her to go and Ñ f_ck herself. Ò

4 5 . She related that Respondent then said that the administration did not

know Ñ how to treat the f_ cking drivers Ò and that i s why he was actin g the

way he was acting.

4 6 . B ecause Respondent refused to driv e the cold bus , Smith was asked to

cover Respondent Ô s route . However, Respondent never gave Smith any

paperwork to document or support his alleged concern with the heater or

defroster.

4 7 . C arol Bello , a bus driver assigned to the Royal Palm F acility , also

testified .

4 8 . Although she was not certain about the date, she recalled an incident

approximately two years ago. Respondent was upset, loud, verbally abusive ,

and calling people names. She specifically recalled him stating , Ñ F_ck you

guys, I Ô m not driving that piece of sh _ t. Ò

49 . She also saw him point his finger at Smith and call her Ñ a bitch , Ò while

ranting and raving in the bus compound around other workers and

supervisors. She acknowle dged that while some occasional profanity was

used by bus drivers while clowning around, people did not talk to their

supervisors like that.

5 0 . Joseph, another bus driver, testified that she had been a bus driver for

fourteen years. On December 12, 2018, s he observed Respondent come out of

the office yelling and cursing at Holloman in the dispatch office. Respondent

went on and on, cursing at Holloman and being very disrespectful to her.

5 1 . Respondent, Bernard Jean Louis, testified. While he admitted tha t he

was upset that day, he essentially denied all allegations that he cursed at

Holloman, or that he refused to follow his supervisor Ô s instruction. The

undersigned did not find this self - serving testimony to be credible or

persuasive, particularly consid ering the contrary and distinct recollection of

events by several other trustworthy and more credible witnesses.

5 2 . The undersigned finds that Respondent Ô s profanity - laced tirade went

on for some time and was done in different areas of the dispatch offic e and

the outside areas of the bus compound. It is not surprising that some

employees heard parts of Respondent Ô s outburst, while other employees

heard other parts.

5 3 . Nonetheless, what clearly and convincingly emerged from the incident

on December 12, 2018 , is that Respondent was extremely upset because it

was cold and he felt that the heater in his bus did not work properly.

5 4 . As a result of his uncontrollable and growing anger and frustration, he

resorted to yelling, arguing , and cursing at his sup ervisor, Holloman, and

failed to follow her directions. The undersigned credits and accepts the

testimony of several witnesses on these points.

5 5 . Upon questions from the undersigned to clarify his testimony,

Respondent admitted that he had not actually t ested or inspected his

assigned bus that morning before confronting Holloman about the problem.

Rather, he concluded that his bus had an inoperable heater based on how this

same bus had operated in the past.

5 6 . While there was a good deal of evidence rela ting to questions about a

drug test taken by Respondent and second - hand evidence regarding the

investigative role of other school board employees, this evidence was not

particularly useful or relevant in this case. 3

5 7 . Despite no objection by either part y to this broad array of other less

relevant evidence, the issues in this case are framed and limited to the

allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner , to wit:

wh ether Respondent Ô s conduct or behavior on December 12, 2018 , at the bus

facility violated the law or school board rules or policies. Christian v. Dep Ô t of

Health, Bd. o f Chiropractic Med. , 161 So. 3d. 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) and

cases cited therein.

3 More directly, the School Board abandoned and did not pursue the drug test as a basis for

the termination. Respondent acknowledged this in the Amended Joint Pre - Hearing

Stipulation. See Joint Pre - Hr Ô g Stip, § B., p . 2 .

5 8 . To the extent other issues need to be resolved, the undersigned finds

tha t the matter is properly before DOAH. Further, there was no persuasive

evidence presented to prove that Petitioner failed to exhaust any

administrative remedies, violated Respondent Ô s due process , or that

Respondent failed to receive proper or sufficient n otice of the conduct being

relied upon by the School Board for his proposed suspension or termination.

See generally , Fla . Bd . of Massage v. Thrall , 164 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3rd DCA

1964).

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

59 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter an d parties. §§ 120.569

and 120.57 (1) , Fla. Stat.

6 0 . S ection 1012.27(5)(a) provides that a school s uperintendent shall

Ñ recommend employees for dismissal under the terms prescribed herein. Ò

6 1. Article 17 , s ection 1 of the parties Ô CBA states:

ARTICLE 17 DI SCIPLINE OF EMPLOYEES

(PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE)

1. Without the consent of the employee and the

Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against

an employee except for just cause, and this must be

substantiated by clear and convincing evidence

which supp orts the recommended disciplinary

action.

6 2 . Ordinarily, the evidentiary burden in school board disciplinary

proceedings is a Ñ preponderance of the evidence. Ò See, e.g., McNeill v. Pinellas

Cty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dileo v . Sch. Bd. of

Dade Cty ., 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). However, in this case where

t he S chool B oard has agreed through collective bargaining to a more

demanding evidentiary standard, it is bound by the terms of the CBA . See

generally , Chiles v. United Faculty of Fla., 615 So. 2d 671, 672 - 73 (Fla. 1993) .

63. Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be

found to be credible , the facts to which the witnesses testify must be

distinctly remembered , and the testimony must be precise and l acking in

confusion as to the facts at issue. In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla.

2005). The evidence must be of such a weight that it produces in the mind of

the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth

of the alle gations sought to be established. Id. (quoting with approval

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

64. In this case the S chool B oard carried its burden of proving facts by

clear and convincing evidence , which established several violations of S chool

B oard rules and policies by R espondent during the Dec ember 12, 2018 ,

incident.

General Principles of Law

6 5 . In a DOAH hearing, the case is reviewed de novo by the

Administrative Law Judge ( Ñ ALJ Ò ) . This means, essentially, that the e vidence

is heard and considered again. Likewise, there is no Ñ presumption of

correctness Ò that attaches to the preliminary decision of the school board or

agency. Fla. Dep Ô t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA

1981) ; and Boca Raton Artif icial Kidney Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Dep Ô t of HRS , 475

So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

6 6 . Factual findings in a recommended order are uniquely within the

province of the ALJ, based on the broad discretion afforded to her or him.

Goin v. Comm Ô n on Ethics , 658 S o. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See also

Heifetz v. Dep Ô t of Bus. Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Bev . & Tobacco 475 So. 2d 1277

(Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

6 7 . It has been explained that an ALJ has the best vantage point to

resolve conflicts, determine the credibility o f witnesses, draw permissible and

reasonable inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact,

based on the evidence presented. Goin , 658 So. 2d at 1138; Dep Ô t of Bus. &

Prof Ô l Reg. v. McCarthy , 638 So. 2d 57 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

6 8 . Whet her Respondent committed the charged offense(s) is a question

of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged

violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);

Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

6 9 . Finally, an agency may not substitute its own facts for that of the ALJ ,

so long as there is adequate evidence in the record to support the ALJ Ô s

findings. Lantz v. Smith , 106 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). See also Resnick

v. Flagler Cty. Sch. Bd ., 46 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)( Ñ In a fact -

driven case such as this, where an employee Ô s conduct is at issue, great

weight is given to the findings of the [ALJ], who has the opportunity to hear

the witnesses Ô testimony and evaluate their credibility. Ò ) .

70 . T he clear and convincing evidence at the hearing , and as generally

defined by the pleadings, demonstrated that the s uperintendent Ô s

recommended termination was not related to a failed drug test. It was related

to the alle gations of misconduct by Respondent at the bus facility on

December 12, 2018.

71 . A voluminous and comprehensive collection of school board policies,

rules, reports , witness statements, and disciplinary documents were admitted

into evidence. It is not nece ssary to recite or enumerate them in this

Recommended Order. Suffice it to say, however, that the relevant and

applicable documents were reviewed and considered by the undersigned and

given the appropriate weight.

7 2 . On October 13, 2017, Respondent elect ronically signed the Code of

Ethics Acknowledgement Receipt, indicating that he was aware of and had

completed the mandatory annual Code of Ethics training and agreed to

comply with School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics, throughout his

employment. SB Ex . 69.

Consideration of Specific Violations

Outlined in Petitioner Ô s Administrative Complaint

Violation of School Board Policy 3.02 (3) and (4)

7 3 . The clear and convincing evidence establishes that there is just cause

to suspend and terminate Respondent Ô s employment as a bus driver for his

violation of School Board Policy 3.02 , Code of Ethics . His screaming and

yelling at his supervisor , Senior Transportation Coordinator Cynthia

Holloman , heard by others , and his use of profanity, impolite language, and

d erogatory terms directed to Holloma n constituted a complete disregard and

breach of his duty to exercise high ethical standards and use good judgment.

By his conduct and profane language , he failed to cooperate with his

supervisor and was very demeaning to wards her.

Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive

7 4 . The clear and convincing evidence in this case also establishes that

there is just cause to terminate Respondent for Failure to Follow Policy/Rule

or Directive in violation of School Board Polic y 1.013 (1). By his conduct on

December 12, 2018 , he failed to carry out his assigned duties in compliance

with several rules and policies of the School Board.

Violation of School Board Policy 3.21

7 5 . Furthermore, the record in this case establishes that th ere is just

cause to terminate Respondent Ô s employment as a bus driver for a violation of

Policy 3.10(6) in that he failed to follow reasonable directives of his

supervisor.

7 6 . Lastly, Respondent Ô s willful and intentional abandonment of his bus in

the bus driveway breached his obligation to safely operate his bus in violation

of Policy 3.21(3).

Applicability of CBA and Progressive Discipline

7 7 . The CBA followed by the parties in this case contains a provision for

progressive discipline in a rticle 17. Li ke many progressive discipline policies,

it imposes progressively stiffer discipline as offenses or violations continue ,

and allows for immediate termination under certain limited circumstances.

7 8 . As with this case, and in the absence of an express list of specific

conduct and progressive penalties for each type of offense, there are generally

no hard and fast rules for progressive discipline. Rather, there is a

progression of discipline for each offense committed. It is largely understood

that the emplo yer retains a fair amount of discretion to reasonably determine

what discipline would be appropriate.

7 9 . Respondent Ô s disciplinary history was introduced by way of several

exhibits , which were admitted without objection. His history included the

following :

1. A Written Reprimand issued on or about

April 25, 2017, for Respondent exhibiting unethical

conduct by engaging in a verbal confrontation with

a school staff member and utilizing profane

language in front of students, as well as engaging

in unsafe oper ation of a District School Bus by

exiting the bus and leaving students onboard

unattended while the bus was running, placing the

bus in motion while students were standing, and

neglecting his seatbelt. [SB Ex. 44.]

2. A ten - day s uspension without Pay for on or about

April 18, 2018. The s uspension was based on

violations related to Failure to Provide for the

Health, Safety, or Welfare of Students; Failure to

Exercise Best Professional Judgment; and Gross

Insubordination: Failure to Follow Policy, Rule, or

D irective. [SB Ex. 43.]

80 . Considering Respondent Ô s disciplinary history and the step

progression of discipline, the next authorized step of discipline for

Respondent under a rticle 17 of the CBA included termination. As a result,

the undersigned concludes that Petitioner had the authority to suspend and

terminate Respondent for the violations found in this O rder.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order

suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 14th day of April , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

R OBERT L. K ILBRIDE

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of April , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Richard Corcoran

V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Commissioner of Education

School District of Palm Beach Co unty Department of Education

Office of the General Counsel Turlington Building, Suite 1514

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard , Suite C - 331 325 West G aines Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Matthew Mears, General Counsel Charles D. Thomas, Esquire

Department of Education Thompson & Thomas, PA

Turlington Building, Suite 1244 1801 Indian Road , Suite 100

325 West Gaines Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Dona ld E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D.

Superintendent

Palm Beach County School Board

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C - 316

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 - 5869

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions withi n 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.