20-002447 Rudyard Julius vs. School Board Of Broward County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 16, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against him in terminating his employment.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

Petitioner, Rudyard Julius (“Petitioner”) , filed an Employment Complaint

of Discrimination (“Complaint”) with FCHR arising from the August 23,

2018 , termination of Petitioner’s employment as a teacher with Respondent,

School Board of Broward County (“ School Board ”). Petitioner’s Complaint

alleged discrimi nation based on race , color, national origin , and sex .

Following its investigation of th e Complaint, FCHR notified the parties that

there was “no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful practice

occurred.”

Petitioner elected to pursue administra tive remedies, timely filing a

Petition for R elief with F CHR on or about May 19, 2020. FCHR r eferred the

matter to DOAH to assign an ALJ to conduct the final hearin g. The final

hearing was held on August 6, 2020 .

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf and did not call

any witnesses or offer exhibits into evidence. Respondent presented the

testimony of four witnesses, all of whom were employed by Mirror Lake

Elementary School (“Mirror Lake”) , where Petitioner was teaching at the

time of his termination . Respondent’s witnesses were: Principal Marlen Veli z

(“Principal Veliz”) ; F orme r Assistant Principal Joan Rosa; T eacher Andrea

Gresham ; and Micro Technology Specialist Osvaldo Hernandez. Respondent’s

Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 were received in to evidence.

The two - volume hearing Transcript was filed with DOAH on

September 14, 2020. Th e undersigned granted an extension for the parties to

complete their proposed recommended orders, which were filed on October 1,

2020. The undersigned considered both proposed recommended orders in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2018

version of the Florida Statutes .

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. P etitioner is a Black West - Indian male .

2. Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida responsible

for operating the public schools in Broward County.

3. Petitioner obtained a temporary teaching certificate from the Florida

Department of Education in 2017.

4. In October 2017, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a teacher at

Walker Elementary School.

5. As a new teacher, Petit ioner was a contract employee subject to a

probationary period of one school year. During the probationary period,

Petitioner could be dismissed without cause or resign without breach of

contract.

6. Petitioner worked at Walker Elementary School, where he did not have

his own classroom , but worked with special - needs children in different

classrooms, until the end of the 2017 - 2018 school year. There were no

teaching positions available at that school for the 2018 - 2019 school year.

7. In August of 2018, Pet itioner was transferred by Respondent to Mirror

L ake, where he filled a first - grade teaching vacancy .

8. Andrea Gr esham was the team leader for first - grade teachers at Mirror

Lake. As a new teacher, Petitioner was assigned a mentor to assist him in

acclim ating to the duties of his position. In addition to being the team leader

for all first - grade teachers at Mirror Lake, Ms. Gresham was also Petitioner’s

designated mentor.

9. Petitioner reported for work at Mirror Lake on August 7, 2018. At that

time, Ms. Gresham took Petitioner on a tour of the campus. She also provided

Petitioner with sample lesson plans and homework for the students.

Throughout the week, Petitioner prepared for the first day of school for

students with Ms. Gresham’s help. These preparat ions included Ms. Gresham

reviewing procedures related to beginning - of - year testing, student homework,

teacher planning, and student dismissal at the end of the school day.

10. It was Ms. Gresham’s habit to keep dated notes relevant to her duties

as a men tor and team leader. As a best practice, she regularly met with

P rincipal Veliz to discuss the progress of new teachers. Ms. Gresham kept

contemporaneous notes of her interactions with Petitioner and kept Principal

Veliz advised of her observations.

11. Ms. Gresham observed that Petitioner was not engaged within the

team of first - grade teachers and had a difficult time grasping school

procedure s despite her attempts to guide him.

12. The typical first - grade student is six years old at the beginning of th e

school year. Given how young these students are, the protocol at Mirror Lake

requires teachers to take extra care to ensure that the students are directed

to the correct mode of transportation during dismissal. Ms. Gresham

explained the dismissal procedu res and emphasized their importance to

Petitioner on more than one occasion leading up to the students’ first day of

school.

13. Each first - grade student is given a lanyard that is color - coded to

correspond to that student’s teacher. Teachers are responsi ble for writing

each child’s mode of transportation , as provided to the teacher by the child’s

parents , on his or her lanyard every day. At the end of the school day, the

children are sorted by their mod e of transportation and escorted by a

designated teac her or paraprofessional . The students are categorized as: car

riders, bus riders, walkers, or attendees of the on - site after - school program.

14 . August 15, 2018 , was the first day of the school year for students at

Mirror L ake . At the end of the school da y, Petitioner, along with all of the

other first - grade teachers, was responsible for assisting his students in

reporting to the appropriate location for their respective modes of

transportation.

15 . On August 15, 2018, Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were both assigned

to the car - rider group.

16. While Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were in the car - rider pickup area,

Ms. Gresham became aware that a student was missing when a visibly upset

parent exited his vehicle having learned that his child was not present for

p ick - up . Ms. Gresham sought help from the school resource officer and other

teachers in an effort to locate the missing student. Principal Veliz testified

credibly that this was the first and last time a student was unaccounted for

at dismissal at Mirror La ke.

17. Ms. Gresham asked to see the transportation log that Petitioner had

compiled for his students to determine how the child was supposed to go

home and where the mistake may have occurred. In reviewing Petitioner’s

transportation log, Ms. Gresham no ticed that the log had some children’s

names listed under two different modes of transportation for the same day .

A s a result, Petitioner’s tra nsportation log did not add any clarity to the

situation . Meanwhile, teachers continued to search the campus for the

missing student and t he school resource officer escorted the father of the

miss ing student to the office to speak with Principal Vel i z.

18. Once the studen t dismissal process was complete for the day ,

Principal Veliz convened a faculty meeting. During the meeting, the fac ulty

learned that a second student from Petitioner’s class was missing. Principal

Veliz adjourned the faculty meeting and assembled the team leaders in the

office to assist in locating the two missing students . Petitioner returned to h is

classroom and did not join the effort to locate the missing students.

19. The team leaders proceeded to call private daycares to ask if the

missing students may have been transported to such a facility by mistake.

Through these phone calls, both of the missing students were located at the

same daycare. Thereafter, the children were reunited with their parents.

20. Principal Veliz met with the parents of the children who had been

mistakenly sent to the wrong location on August 15, 2018. Principal Veliz

personally paid for the daycare center’s charges with respect to one of the

students who had been inadvertently sent there. Principal Veliz testified that

the parents were upset that their children had been misplaced and that the

parents of one of the chil dren requested a transfer to another first - grade

teacher .

21. Ms. Gresham had the opportunity to examine the lanyard belonging to

one of the students who had gone missing during dismissal. She observed that Petitioner had written on the lanyard that the st udent was to ride the

bus that day, although the parents had previously informed Petitioner that

the student was to be picked up by car.

22 . In conducting a routine observational visit to Petitioner’s classroom

during the first week of school, Principal V eliz observed conditions that she

considered of urgent concern with respect to Petitioner’s academic practices

and overall classroom management. She observed a lack of structure,

including students in Petitioner’s class wandering around the room and

playin g with pencils as though they were swords without any redirection .

Principal Veliz also observed that Petitioner was using obsolete and

ineffective teaching methods.

23 . Principal Veliz contacted the school district’s employee relations and

talent acquisit ion office to discuss Petitioner’s employment status.

Principal Veliz was notified that Petitioner was still within his one - year

probationary term, and that his employment could be terminated without a formal hearing or progressive disciplinary measures. P rincipal Veliz made

the decision to terminate Petitio ner ’s employment prior to the end of his

probationary status based on his unsatisfactory performance.

24 . Principal Veliz obtained a form letter from the school district’s human

resources department , wh ich she modified to fit Petitioner ’s circumstances.

The letter was dated August 23, 2018. The letter stated that Petitioner’s

name would be submitted to the next School Board meeting for termination

of employment during a probationary period and that Petit ioner could choose

to resign in lieu of termination. Petitioner chose not to sign the document .

2 5 . Petitioner’s employment was terminated at the next meeting of th e

School Board .

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

26 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding

pursuant to sections 120.569 and 12 0.57(1), Florida Statutes .

27 . The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), chapter 760, Florida

Statutes, prohibits discrimination in the workplace. Among other things, the

FCRA makes it unlawful for a n employer:

To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any

individual with respect to compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of

such individua l’s race, color, religion, sex,

pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or

marit al status .

§ 760.10(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

28 . The FCRA, as amended, is patterned after Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and 1991 (“Title VII”). Thus, federal decisional authority

interpreting Title VII is applicable to cases arising under the FCRA. J ohnson v. Great Expressions Dental Ctrs. of Fla., P.A. , 132 So. 3d 1174, 1176

(Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

29 . A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case for discrimination either by

direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence requires actual proof that

t he employer acted with a discriminatory motive when making the

employment d ecision in question. Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 710 So. 2d 618,

624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) . C ircumstantial evidence, on the other hand,

re quires a petitioner to satisfy the four - prong test established

in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) . Here, Petitioner’s

claim is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

30 . Based on the United States Supreme Court’s analysis in

Mc Donnell Douglas , in order to establish a prima facie case based on

circumstantial evidence, Petitioner must show that he :

1) belongs to a protected class;

2) was qualified to do the job;

3) was subjected to an adverse employment action; and

4) the employer treated similarly situated employees outside the class

more favorably.

Id. at 802 - 03.

31 . If Petitioner were to satisfy all four prongs of the

McDonnell Douglas framework, then the burden would shift to Respondent to

produce evidence of a legitimate, non - discrimi natory reason for his

termination. Id.

32. Petitioner satisfied the first prong by establishing that he is part of a

protected class within the meaning of the FCRA, which prohib its

discrimination, in pertinent part, based on “sex,” “race , ” and “national o rigin . ”

Petitioner established that he is a B lack West - I ndian male .

33. The parties do not dispute th at Petitioner meets the criterion for the

second prong in that he was qualified to do the job of a first - grade teacher, for

which he was hired by Responde nt.

34. Petitioner also satisfied the third prong, as his termination from

employment by Respondent is clearly an adverse employment action, which

constitutes “a significant change in employment status, such as discharge .. .”

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth , 524 U.S. 742, 744 (1998).

35 . Petitioner’s claim fails as to the fourth prong, which requires a

showing that Respondent treated similarly situated employees outside the

class more favorably . With respect to the fourth element, “[e]mployees are

similarly situated when they are ‘ involved in or accused of the same of

similar conduct ’ ” Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. v. Shapiro , 68 So. 3d 298, 305

(Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Moore v. City of Charlotte , 754 F. 2d 1100, 1105

(4 th Cir. 1985). “The quantit y and quality of the comparator’s misconduct

[must] be nearly identical. ” Maniccia v. Brown , 171 F. 3d 1364, 1368 (11th

Cir. 1999). Respondent presented credible evidence showing that no other

teacher at Mirror Lake had ever misplaced a student in the mann er

Petitioner did. Petitioner did not present any evidence to the contrary on this

point. In fact, he did not pres ent evidence of any kind that similarly - situated

employees outside of his class were treated more favorably than he was .

3 6 . Failure to estab lish a prima facie case of discrimination ends the

inquiry. Kidd v. Mando Am. Corp ., 731 F. 3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir. 2013).

Petitioner did not present any evidence that raises an inference of

discrimination. Even if Petitioner had met his initial burden su fficient to

establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the burden had shifted to

Respondent to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

termination, Respondent would have successful ly met that burden. The

persuasive and credible evide nce adduced at hearing showed that Petitioner

was terminated because he failed to properly follow after - school

transportation protocols resulting in the misplacement of two first - grade

students. A dditionally, Petitioner did not demonstrate even a n aptitude for

proper The reasons academic practices and overall classroom management.

that were articulated by Respondent for the termination of Petitioner’s

employment were legitimate and non - discriminatory. No evidence was

introduced to show that the performance - based reasons were pret extual or

that other persons with similar performance issues were treated more

favorably.

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for

Relief.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1 6 th day of October , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

B RITTANY O. F INKBEINER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Fl orida 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 16 th day of October , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Rudyard Julius

19101 Northwest 11th Street

Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029

(eServed)

Michael T. Burke, Esquire

Jo hnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke,

Piper & Hochman, P.A.

2455 East Sunrise Boulevard , Suite 1000

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304

(eServed)

Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XC EPTIONS

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.