20-002889 Okeechobee County School Board vs. Jacqueline Skinner Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, October 22, 2020.

Summary: The Okeechobee County School Board had just cause to terminate an elementary school bookkeeper for repeated unapproved and unauthorized absences from work.

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether Petitioner has suffic ient just cause to terminate Respondent,

Jacque line Skinner ("Skinner") , for multiple unapproved absences from work.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

O n May 18, 2020, Superintendent Ken Kenworthy notified Skinner in

writing that she was being suspended without pay pending his

recommendation to the Okeechobee Cou nty School Board (the "Board") of

Skinner ' s termination from employment.

The letter outlined that he would be recomm ending termination to the

Board due to her failure " to follow established guidelines concerning

arrangement for leave in advance or notify ing your immediate supervisor. " 1

On June 17, 2020, Skinner notified the Board in writing that she was

request ing an admi nistrative hearing pursuant to s ections 120.569 and

120.57, Florida Statutes.

An administrative hearing was conducted by the unders igned on

September 1, 2020, via Zoom conference.

Petitioner presented testimony from Ken Kenworthy, Dr. Joseph Stanley,

Cynthia Kubit, Christina Norman, and Jacqueline Skinner. Petitioner ' s

Exhibits 1 through 13, 18 , and 19 were admitted into evidence.

1 The limited issue in this case was framed by Superintendent Kenworthy ' s letter --

essentially, did Skinner ' s repeated absences from work constitute just cause to terminate

h er. M oreover, in this proceeding, Petitioner is limited to the allegations raised in the

termination letter. While the evidence revealed other work related problems and evidence of

problems with alcohol , these issues were not raised in the notification let ter, and cannot be

relied upon as the basis for termination. See generally , Cottrill v. Dep ' t of Ins . 685 So. 2d

1371( Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Christian v. Dep ' t of Health, Bd. o f Chiropractic Med., 161 So. 3d

416 ( Fla. 2d DCA 2014) .

R espondent presented testimony f rom Jacqueline Skinner and

Gary Simmons. Respondent ' s E xhibit 2 was admitted into evidence.

The Transcript of the Final Hearing w as filed with DOAH on

September 10, 2020. After a brief extension of time was granted, proposed

recommended orders were timely submitted by the parties.

Any references to statutes, rules , or policies herein include the versions in

effect at the time the related action, omission , or conduct occurred.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the

u ndersigned makes the following Findings of F act:

Parties ' Stipulated Facts

1 . At all times pertinent, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a

bookkeeper at Central Elementary School.

2 . Respondent ' s supervisor during th e 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18 , and 2018 - 19

school years was Joseph G. Stanley, principal of Central Elementary School.

3 . Respondent ' s supervisor during t he 2019 - 20 school year was

Cynthia Kubit, principal of Central Elementary School.

4 . At all times pertinent, Ch ristina Norman was an assistant principal at

Central Elementary School.

5 . At all times pertinent, Ken Kenworthy was superintendent of

Okeechobee County Schools.

6 . The annual non instructional employee evaluatio ns of Respondent from

the 2017 - 18, 2018 - 19, and 2019 - 20 school years showed that Respondent

needed improvement in attendance. P et . Ex. 1.

7 . Respondent failed to report for work on June 7, 2019 , without arranging

for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor.

8 . Principal Jo seph G. Stanley issued a lette r to R espondent dated

June 14, 2019 , confirming a verbal reprimand; Respondent acknowledged

receipt of said letter. P et . Ex. 2.

9 . Respondent failed to report for work on October 29, 2019 , without

arranging for leave in advan ce and without notifying her immediate

supervisor.

10 . Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent

dated October 30, 2019; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. P et .

Ex. 3.

11. During February 2020, Respondent continued to have incidents

regarding leave and , by letter dated February 20, 2020, Principal Cynthia

Kubit recommended disciplinary action against Respondent; Respondent

acknowledged receipt of said letter. P et . Ex. 4.

12 . On May 15, 2020, Respondent failed to report to work without

arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor.

13 . Principal Cynthia Kubit, in the presence of Assistant Principal

Christi na Norman, called Respondent several times and issued a

memorandum of the telephone conversations. P et . Ex. 6.

14 . Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter to Superintendent Ken

Kenworthy dated May 18, 2020 , recommending that Respondent be

terminated; Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. P et.

Ex. 7.

15 . By letter dated May 18, 2020 , to Respondent , Superintendent Ken

Kenworthy informed Respondent that h e was recommending to the Board

that Respondent ' s employment b e terminated. T he letter was hand delivered

to Respondent by Assistant Principal Dylan Tedders and Respondent

acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. P et . Ex. 8.

16 . At all times pertine nt, School Board Policy 6.213 -- Notification of

Absence -- was in effect. P et . Ex. 9.

17 . At all times pertin ent , School Board Policy 6.20 -- Leave of Absence --

was in full force and effect. P et . Ex. 10.

18 . At all times pertin ent , School Board Policy 6.52 -- Suspension and

Dismissal -- was in full force and effect. P et . Ex. 11.

19 . At all times pertin ent , School Board Policy 6.45 -- Al cohol and Drug

Free Workplace -- was in full force an d effect.

Other Facts Established by the Evidence

20. Skinner was employed pursuant to the Okeechobee County School

Board Classified Pe rsonnel Contract for the 2019 - 20 School Year on a

continuing basis. P et . Ex. 18 .

21. An employee who has completed the p robationary period may be

dismissed under the Classified Personnel Contract for just cause. P et. Ex. 18,

p . 15 .

22. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, under Public Employer

Rights, " [i]t is the right of the Board to direct its employees, to tak e

disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty

because of lack of work an d other legitimate reasons…. " P et . Ex. 18 , p . 5.

23. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, the Board is required

to follow progressive discipline , the progression of which is as follows:

" documented verbal warning; written reprimand following a meeting;

suspension; termination. " P et . E x. 18, p . 13.

24. It was largely undisputed, as acknowledged in the Joint Pre - hearing

Statement - Amended , filed Sept ember 1, 2020, that Ski nner had attendance

problems the past several years of her employment, which escalated in the

last year of her employment.

25. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner ' s attendance problems

started immediately when Kubit became p rincipal in July 2019 and

continued throughout the last year of Skinner's employment.

26. During her last year of employment, from the time period July 1, 2019 ,

through May 14, 2020, Skinner accumulated numerous absences from work.

27. During her last ye ar of employment, Skinner used more leave than she

had allocated. This put her leave bank in the negative. P et . Ex. 19 .

28. This was not the first time Skinner used more leave than she had

accrued. Her prior supervisor , Dr. Stanley , testified that Skinner would run

out of available sick days and then would have to take unpaid leave.

29. During her last year of employment, Skinner failed to attend work

approximately ten days and failed to arrange for advance leave with her

supervisor. P et . Ex. 12 .

30. Prov iding advance notice of an absence could have been accomplished

by Skinner by calling, texting, or e - mailing her supervisor any time prior to

the start of the work day, even a few minutes before.

31. On some of the days when Skinner failed to attend work, arrange for

leave , or notify her supervisor, her supervisor, Kubit, nonetheless tried to

assist Skinner by not disciplining her for failure to attend work without

notice.

32. For instance, Kubit sometimes allowed Skinner to use vacation days

when she ran out of sick days even though employees are normally required

to arrange for vacation leave days in advance. Kubit did so because she

wanted Skinner to co me ba ck and work more regularly. Kubit thought it

would help Skinner to do so.

33. According to Kub it , Skinner did not provide legitimate excuses for her

unauthorized absences. Instead, she just repeatedly apologized and promised

to improve her attendance in the future.

34. Skinner candidly acknowledged during her testimony that she had

attendance proble ms and that she had received multiple disciplinary letters

for her problems with attendance.

Annual Performance Evaluations

35. As part of her employment, Skinner received annual employee

evaluations. P et . Ex. 1 .

36. Her attendance problems over time were documented and verified in

her annual employee evaluations . P et . Ex. 1.

37. More specifically, Skinner ' s last four annual employee evaluations

evaluated her on six main categories of performance, one of which was

Attendance. This category evaluated the fo llowing performance attribute:

" Complies with policies and procedures rega rding usage of time and leave;

[m] aintains scheduled work and break times; [r] eports absences for

emergencies and illnesses, and requests leave, in a timely manner. " P et.

Ex. 1, pp . 1 - 4.

38. In each of her last three annual employee evaluations, Skinner was

rated as " Needs Improvement " for Attendance. P et. Ex. 1, pp . 2 - 4 .

39. On each of the last four annual employee evaluations, Skinner also

received written comments from her supervi sor about her attendance. These

comments were consistent and pointed out that Skinner needed to improve

attendance and work to comply with attendance policies. P et. Ex. 1, pp . 1 - 4.

40. Each annual performance evalua tion was discussed with Skinner and

she s igned each. P et . Ex. 1, pp . 1 - 4.

School Board Attendance Policies and Requirements

41. The Board 's policies establish ed and outline d general guidelines and

expectations fo r work attendance. Employees were generally expected to

attend work as schedul ed unle ss they had arranged for advance leave. See

generally , P et . Ex. 10 . Employees who were abs ent from duty for any reason

were required to notify their s upervisor as early as possible.

42. Notification of an absence had to be given in advance unless condition s

beyond the control of the employee mad e advance notice impossible. P et .

Ex. 9.

43. The Classified Personnel Contract governing Skinner and other

employees simil arly provided that employees were required to arrange for

advance leave for vacation and to n otify their supervisor prior to the start of

the work day if they were taking sick leave. P et. Ex. 18, pp . 33 and 34 .

44. The School Bookkeeper Job Description , which applied to Skinner ,

required her to follow attendance, punctuality , and other qualities of an

appropriate work ethic. P et . Ex. 13, line 11 .

45. Skinner ' s significant and frequent attendance problems caused her to

fall short of these policy, contract , and job description requirements.

History of Attendance Problems

46. The witnesses confirme d that Skinner violated the attendance policies

on a frequent basis for several years . Regrettably, her attendance problems

became most acute in her last year. This eventually lead to a

recommendation for her termination in her last year of employment.

47 . The parties acknowledged in their Joint Pre - hearing Statement -

A mended, that Skinner received all required stages of progressive discipline

for her attendance problems . This included a verbal warning, a written

reprimand , and a suspension, finally resulti ng in a recommendation by the

Superintendent that her employment be terminated.

48. Skinner ' s supervisors also discussed and counseled her on her

attendance problems several times throughout the years , both informally and

formally .

49. In the disciplina ry letters, Skinner was informed that , in the event of

recurrence, she would be subjected to further discipline including a

recommendation for termination. P et . Ex s . 2 - 3.

50. More specifically, in the disciplinary letter from the Superintendent

dated Marc h 3, 2020, Skinner was informed that: " It is expected that there be

no further occurrence of such behavior. If it continues, your position with the Okeechobee County School Board will be terminated. " P et . Ex. 5, p . 1 .

51. In t his disciplinary letter, Skin ner received numerous attachments

including copies of the Board Policy 6.213, entitled " Notification of Absence

and the Employee Assistance Plan. "

52. Skinner signed and acknowledged receiving the disciplinary letters for

her attendance problem s , and agre ed that they put her on notice that her

attendance shortcomings were a problem.

53. Skinner also received negative employee evaluations on her

attendance for the past three years, which were discussed and signed by her.

P et . Ex. 1, pp . 2 - 4.

54. It was clea r to the undersigned that Skinner received full, fair , and

adequate notice of her attendance problem for several years. Unfortunately,

she was unable to correct it after multiple warnings, corrective action , and

progressive discipline.

Termination Authorit y

55. Su perintendent Ken Kenworthy is responsible for determining and

recommending whether an employee should be terminated for violation of Board policies or rules . P et . Ex. 11.

56. The Superinten dent is only entitled to discipline and terminate the

empl oyment of an administrative employee on a continuing contract for " just

cause . " P et. Ex. 18, p . 15.

57. The Superintendent testified that he takes many factors into

consideration when determining whether just cause exists for termination.

He looks at the r easonableness of the Board ' s rules, whether the employee

was informed of the rules, and whether the disciplinary action taken is

proportionate to the infraction.

58. The undersigned finds that this process is fair, and provides adequate

due process to affe cted employees of the District.

59. The Superintendent ensures that progressive discipline has been

followed when taking an action against an employee ' s employment. See

generally , P et . Ex. 8 .

60. In this case, all the stages of progressive discipline fro m infor mal

conversations and memoranda of conference through the formal disciplinary

stages of verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and

recommendation for termination were followed .

61. The Board ' s r ules on employee attendance are reasonable a nd

necessary to ensure the proper functioning and operation of the school

district.

62 . Several witnesses and the Superintendent testified that proper and

regular attendance was a " critical " and " essential function " of an employee ' s

job performance.

63 . Skinner ' s supervisors, Kubit and Dr. Stanley , both testified that

notification of absences when an employee cannot attend work is " critical. "

Several Board witnesses provided testimony showing the hardship that

Skinner ' s absences created for Central Elemen tary School .

64 . For instance, Dr. Stanley expressed his view that it was a hardship for

Central Elementary School when Skinner was absent, especially at the last

minute, because others had to cover her job . This left the school short staffed

in other are as.

65 . Likewise, a ccording to Kubit, it was especially difficult when Skinner

was absent because other people had to perform her duties, but acc ording to

rules and regulations most people were not authorized to handle money.

66 . According to Assistant Pr incipal Norman, when Skinner was absent

from work, money would have to be kept at the school even though it is

supposed to be promptly deposited. This was true because only Skinner could

verify the money for a deposit. This violated bookkeeping rules about

depositing money, and was uns afe when large sums of money were left

un deposited at a school.

67 . Skinner was advised on numerous occasions and by different people

that her repeated and unauthorized absences without notification were

creating difficulty f or the functioning of Central Elementary School .

68 . Not only did Skinner leave the school short staffed, but she had a

tendency to do so when her presence was most needed. The witnesses

concurred that Skinner ' s repeated absences tended to follow a patter n.

6 9 . For example, if Central Elementary School was at a busy time of year

or an event occurred that required additional bookkeeping, like a fundraising

event, Skinner often would not come to work and did not arrange for leave or

call in. This left the sc hool in a difficult predicament.

70 . Aside from her leaving the school short staffed, Skinner ' s work

absences also had a negative effect on her job performance.

71 . Several Board witnesses testified, for example, that Skinner ' s work

performance started t o decline. This was caused by Skinner ' s work getting

backed up and not completed on time because of her absences.

72 . T his became particularly evident after her suspension when other

employees came in to review her unfinished work and sort out the

bookkee ping at Central Elementary School . During this review , several

problems were noticed .

73 . Skinner acknowledged knowing that her problem with unauthorized

absences was having a negative effect on Central Elementary School .

74 . During the hearing, Skinner admitted that her struggle with alcohol

misuse caused or contributed to her attendance problems.

75 . According to her supervisor, Dr. Stanley, Skinner never provided

alcoholism as an excuse for her absences. Instead, Skinner would make the

excuse that she slept in or just did not get up to come to work.

76 . According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner did not offer or mention

problems with alcohol as an excuse for her unauthori zed absences. Instead,

she regularly apologized and promised to improve her atte ndance in the

future.

77 . Not only did Skinner not reveal to her supervisors that alcoholism was

a reason for her absence problem, Skinner never sought assistance or

accommodation for her struggle with alcohol prior to the Superintendent's

recommendation for termination.

78 . The Board provides employees struggling with medical or other

problems assistance through its Employee Assistance Program. It also

provides leave for medical problems though the Family Medical Leave Act

( " FMLA " ). P et. Ex. 18, p . 32 .

79 . Skinner was provided a copy of the Employee Assistance Plan when

she was suspended for three days in March 2020 , prior to the

Superintendent's recommendation for termination of her employment two

months later. P et . Ex. 5, p. 2.

80 . However, despite he r awareness of the assistance offered in March

2020, Skinner never used the Employee Assistance Plan or FMLA leave to

try and save her job or correct her underlying problem prior to being

terminated.

81 . While the evidence revealed that an employee suffer ing from an

alcohol problem had an opportunity to seek treatment while still employed, th is treatment was permitted when their employment was active and in good

stead -- not after the employee was suspended and dism issal of employment

was in progress .

82 . Fu rther, Skinner testified that she had been an alcoholic her " whole

life " and it had progressively gotten worse in the last four years. Regrettably,

there was no medical documentation or other evidence pro vided in advance for the Board to verify her problem with alcohol.

83 . But, at the end of the day , and to be clear, this was Skinner ' s illness

and it was her responsibility to seek help and take advantage of programs the

Board of fered.

2

2 The undersigned reasonabl y infers from the evidence and record that Skinner knew or

should have known about the E mployee A ssistance P lan ma n y months, if not years, before

her termination. Sadly, however, she did not take advantage of the program.

84 . Turning directly to the matter at hand, the allegations of the

Su perintendent ' s termination letter were limited to her attendance problems.

85 . While problems with alcohol may have existed or accounted for her

absences, the crux of this case concerns Skinner ' s attendance problem. Other

violations or performance deficie ncies related to Skinner ' s problems with

alcohol or related performance issues were not alleged as a basis to terminate

her .

86 . Those related problems provide some background and context to the

attendance issue at hand, but they are not being considered by the

undersigned as directly affecting the outcome of this case.

87 . Added to that, despite later discovering Skinner ' s problems with

alcohol and how this affected her attendance, the Superintendent did not

amend his recommendation for termination of emp loyment to include abuse

of alcohol or other related work performance issues.

88 . Superintendent Kenworthy felt that Skinner ' s chronic and disruptive

workplace absences alone merited termination of employment. In his view, no

other violations needed to be cited since Skinner was not meeting his

attendance expectations .

8 9 . Based on the g reater weight of the evidence, the undersigned find s

that the Board had sufficient just cause to terminate Skinner for repeated

and chronic attendance problems.

C ONCLUSIO NS OF L AW

90 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this case

pursuant to sections 120.569 , 120.57(1) , and 1012.33 (6)( a) 2 . , Florida Statutes.

91 . Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent ' s employment . Since this

case does not involve the loss of a teaching license or certification, Petitioner

has the burden of proving its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence,

as opposed to the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. See McNeill v. Pinellas Cty. Sch. Bd ., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v.

Sch. Bd. of Dade C ty ., 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); and Dileo v.

Sch. Bd. of Dade C ty ., 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

92 . On a related note, the Superintendent issued a termination let ter on

May 18, 2020. T he Board is, therefore, l imited to seeking discipline only for

th at violation. Discipline for any other conduct or infractions would not be

authorized. Christian v. Dep ' t of Health, Bd. of Chiropractic Med ., 161 So. 3d

416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), and cases cit ed therein.

9 3 . The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by " the

greater weight of the evidence, " Black ' s Law Dictionary , 1201 (7th ed. 1999),

or evidence that " more likely than not " tends t o prove a certain proposition.

See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 28 1 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American

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

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

94 . In proceedings at DOAH , the matter is considered de novo by the

Administrati ve Law Judge ("ALJ") . This means that the ALJ considers the

evidence again, and t here is no presumption of correctness t hat attaches to

the decision of the Board . Fla. Dep ' t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778

(Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Boca Raton Artificia l Kidney Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Dep ' t of

HRS , 475 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

95 . Factual findings in a recommended order are based on the discretion

afforded to an independent ALJ . Goin v. Comm ' n on Ethics , 658 So. 2d 1131

(Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

96 . The l aw requires the ALJ to consid er all the evidence presented. The

ALJ is authorized to resolve conflicts, determine the credibility of witnesses,

draw permissible and reasonable inferences from the evidence, and reach

ultimate findings of fact based on the c ompetent and s ubstantial evidence

presented. Id.

97 . Whether Skinner 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 , 66 7 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);

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

98 . Section 1001.41(2), Florida Statutes , grants the Board the authority to

adopt rules pursuant to sections 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement its

statutory duties and to supple ment rules prescribed by the State Board of

Education.

99 . The Board has adopted the School Board of Okee chobee County

Policies Manual. Board Policy 6.213 , Notification of Absence , provides , in

pertinent part, as follows:

An employee who is absent from d uty for any

reason shall notify the principal or his/her

immediate supervisor as early as possible. Such

notification shall be given in advance unless

condition beyond the control of the employee makes such advance notification impossible. (emphasis added) .

P et . Ex. 9.

100 . Board Policy 6.20 -- Leave of Absence -- provides, in pertinent part, as

follows :

A leave of absence is permission granted by the

School Board or allowed under its adopted policies

for an employee to be absent from duty for a

specified pe riod of time. Any absence of an

employee from duty shall be covered by leave

duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be

officially granted in advance and shall be used for

the purposes set forth in the leave application.

Leave for sickness or other emerge ncies may be

deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is

made to the proper authority. (emphasis added).

P et . Ex. 10.

10 1 . The School Bookkeeper Job Description is adopted by the Board and

sets forth the essential duties of the position. The Scho ol Bookkeeper Job

Description provides, in pertinent part, as follows :

PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:

(11) Follow attendance, punctuality and other

qualities of an appropriate work ethic [.]

(25) Follow federal and state laws as well as

School Board polic es, rules and regulations[.]

(emphasis added).

Pet. Ex. 13.

102 . Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

Respond ent violated Board Policy 6.213 -- Notification of Absence -- and Board

Policy 6.20 -- Leave of Absence -- by failing to notify her supervisor on several

occasions when she was absent from duty or to ar range for leave in advance.

P et . Ex s . 9 and 10.

103 . Skinner was informed on many occasions that she needed to notify

her supervisor in advance of the work day if she was going to be abs ent from

work or arrange for leave in advance, but continually failed to do so despite

such repeated warnings. P et . Ex s . 2 - 5 , 7, and 8.

104 . Further, Skinner was required as a part of her job responsibilities to

know and follow Board Policies. P et . Ex. 13 .

105 . Skinner ' s termination was based on her repeated ly failing to attend

work as scheduled or arranging for advance leave or notifying her supervisor

of her absence s , which occurred on multiple days in 2019 and 2020.

106 . Prior to termination, Skinner was properly afforded all steps of

progressive discipline.

107 . Skinner ' s repeated and unauthorized absences from work after

failing to heed multiple warnings constitute just cause for termination of her employment .

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that the Okeechobee County School Board enter a Final

Order terminating Jacqueline Skinner ' s employment .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 22nd day of October , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

R OBERT L. K ILBRIDE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Divisio n of Administrative Hearings

this 22nd day of October , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire

Johnson and Caggia Law Group

510 Vonderburg Drive , Suite 303

Brandon, Florida 33511

(eServed)

Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire

Law Office of Thom as Johnson, P.A.

510 Vonderburg Drive , Suite 309

Brandon, Florida 33511

(eServed)

Thomas W. Conely, Esquire

Conely & Conely, P.A.

Post Office Box 1367

Okeechobee, Florida 34973

(eServed)

Molly Lauren Shaddock, Esquire

Sniffen and Spellman

605 North Ol ive Avenue , 2nd Floor

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

(eServed)

Ken Kenworthy, Superintendent

Okeechobee School Board

700 Southwest 2nd Avenue

Okeechobee, Florida 34974

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

D epartment of E ducation

Turlington Building, Suite 12 44

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended O rder should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.