22-000248 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Daniel Delgado Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 5, 2022.

Summary: School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that just cause exists to suspend without pay for 30 days Respondent's employment as a journeyperson/plumber for a violation of School Board policies.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

M IAMI - D ADE C OUNTY S CHOOL B OARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 22 - 0248

D ANIEL D ELGADO ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge (ÑALJÒ) Darren A.

Schwartz of the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ) for final

hearing on August 1 1 , 2022, by Zoom conference.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michelle L ara Jones, Esquire

Miami - Dade County School Board

1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430

Miami, Florida 33132

For Respondent: Adolfo Antonio Gil, Esquire

Gil & Gil, P.A.

4160 West 16th Avenue , Suite 501

Hialeah, Florida 33012

David H . Nevel, Esquire

David H. Nevel , P.A.

780 5th Avenue South , Suite 200

Naples, Florida 34102

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and

terminate RespondentÔs employment a s a journeyperson/plumber.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

By letter dated January 13, 2022, Petitioner, Miami - Dade County School

Board (ÑSchool BoardÒ), notified Respondent, Daniel Delgado (ÑRespondentÒ),

of the School BoardÔs action to suspend without pay and te rminate his

employment as a journeyperson/plumber. Respondent timely requested an

administrative hearing. On January 25, 2022, the School Board referred the

matter to DOAH to assign an AL J to conduct the final hearing.

The Notice of Specific Charges contains certain factual allegation s and,

based on those factual allegations, the School Board charged Respondent

with Misconduct in Office. The final hearing was initially set for April 12,

2022. On April 7, 2022, the School Board filed an unopposed motio n for

continuance. On April 11, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order granting

the motion and resetting the final hearing for June 13, 2022. On June 8,

2022, Respondent filed an unopposed motion for continuance. On June 10,

2022, the undersigned entered a n Order granting the motion and resetting

the final hearing for August 11, 2022.

The final hearing was conducted on August 11, 2022, with all parties

present. At the outset of the final hearing, the School Board a bandoned the

allegations contained in p ar agraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges and

proceeded on the allegations contained in paragraph eight, only . The School

Board presented the testimony of Timor Brik, Connor Bell, Henry Felipe, and

Ann - Marie Duboulay. PetitionerÔs Exhibits 1 through 6, 8, and 16 through 1 8

were received into evidence. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and

presented the additional testimony of Gary Sneesby. RespondentÔs Exhibits 1,

2, 4, 5, and 8 were received into evidence.

The one - volume final hearing Transcript was filed at DOAH on

September 12, 2022. The parties timely filed proposed recommended orders,

which were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

On April 7, 2022, the parties filed their Joint Pr e - Hearing Stipulation, in

which they stipulated to certain facts. These facts have been incorporated

into this Recommended Order , to the extent relevant, as indicated below.

Unless otherwise indicated, all rule and statutory violations refer to the

versions in effect at the time of the alleged violations.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. The School Board is a duly - constituted school board charged with the

duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami - Dade

County, Florida.

2. Si nce 2006, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a

journeyperson/plumber in the maintenance department . At all times material

to this proceeding, Respondent has been supervised by Mr. Felipe , who is

employed by the School Board as a plumbing f oreperson.

3. At all times relevant to this case , RespondentÔs employment with the

School Board was governed by Florida law, the School BoardÔs policies, and

the collective bargaining agreement (ÑCBAÒ) between the School Board and

the Dade County Schools Maintenance Employee Committee (ÑDCSMECÒ).

Disciplinary History

4. On June 18, 2021, Respondent was issued a reprimand for allegedly

using an unauthorized lockup a t a school site . The reprimand directed

Respondent, among other things, to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board

polices, specifically 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of

Ethics; and 7440.02, Vandalism, Damage, Loss, and Malicious Mischief; (2)

cease an d desist from any behavior which has the appearance of impropriety;

(3) adhere to all policies and procedures regarding storage of School Board

equipment and tools; (4) adhere to all job responsibilities and duties as

delineated in his job description and adhere to his assigned work schedule ;

and (5) conduct himself in a manner that will reflect credit upon himself and

the School Board. Respondent was informed that failure to comply with the

directives may result in further disciplinary action, up to and in cluding

dismissal. At the hearing, counsel for the School Board acknowledged that

the reprimand is relevant for the limited purpose of showing progressive

discipline required by the CBA .

Paragraph Eight of the Notice of Specific Charges

5. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School BoardÔs suspension and

proposed termination of Respondent is contained in paragraph eight of the

Notice of Specific Charges. Interestingly, the alleged conduct occurred before

the June 2021 reprimand. In additi on, t he alleged conduct in paragraph nine ,

which was abandoned by the School Board at the outset of the hearing,

occurred before the June 202 1 reprimand.

6 . In paragraph eight of the Notice of Specific Charges , the School Board

alleges that :

F rom January 2001 through April 2001, Respondent

repeatedly made unauthorized stops in the vehicle

owned by Petitioner and assigned to Respondent

during the work day. In addition, Respondent forged

the signature with corresponding employee numbers

on daily stat us report forms and/or provided false

information to his supervisors regarding his

whereabouts during the workday.

RespondentÔs Vehicle Use and Daily Status Forms Submitted to Mr. Felipe

7 . As a plumbing foreperson, Mr. FelipeÔs job duties include dispatching

plumbers every morning and checking the plumberÔs jobs at different school

sites . E very morning, plumbers report to Mr. FelipeÔs office and he dispatches

them to any emergency that has been reported to his office. The plumbers are

required to r espond to the school sites they are dispatched to by Mr. Felipe .

8 . Every day, p lumbers are required to s ubmit a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe in his office for each school visited by the plumber . Mr. Felipe

testified that he reviewed the Daily Status Forms as part of his duties. The

Daily Status Form contain s the school name , work hours of the plumber, and

a brief description of the work performed by the plumber at a school site . The

Daily Status F orm also contain s a space for the p rincipal or an authorized

representative of the school to sign.

9 . During the COVI D - 19 pandemic , and in order to prevent contact

between the plumbers and authorized office and administrative personnel at

school sites, plumbers were allowed to have Mr. Felipe sign the Daily Status

Form in stead of the p rincipal or other authorized representative of the school.

10 . Plumbers may be required to travel to multiple school locations in a

single day. Respondent traveled to s chool job sites in a vehicle equipped with

a GPS tracker (ÑGPSÒ) . DataRemote, Inc. (ÑDataRemoteÒ) , is a wireless

technology company located in Miami, Florida, which manufactures and sells

GPS trackers. DataRemote is the provider of GPS for the School Board.

1 1 . Mr. Bell has been employed by DataRemote as a Senior Technical

Specialist for almost six years . Mr. Bell explained in detail how the GPS

works ; that t he GPS operates similar to a cellular phone w hich includes a

receiver and cellular modem . The GPS receiver calculates its location based

on the amount of time it takes for a signal to travel from the receiver to the

exact GPS satellite position in orbit . The GPS then periodically uses the

internal cellular modem to back - haul the data to DataRemoteÔs server and

platform, where the data is stored. The GPS is accurate to approximately six

feet.

1 2 . On January 28, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at Dr. Rolando Espinosa K - 8 Center that

day. However, the GPS shows Respondent spent most of the day at other

school sites.

1 3 . On February 10, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at Hialeah Gardens Sen ior High School

(ÑHGSHSÒ) all day. However, the GPS shows Respondent spent most of the

day at other school sites.

1 4 . On March 8, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at Ben Sheppard Elementary School

(ÑBSESÒ) all day. However, the GPS shows Respondent spent most of the day

at other school sites.

15 . On March 10, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at BSES all day. However, the GPS

shows Respondent sp ent the entire day at other school site s .

1 6 . On March 17, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at HGSHS all day. However, the GPS

shows Respondent spent much of the day at other school sites.

1 7 . On March 19, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at John I. Smith K - 8 Center (ÑJIS K - 8

CenterÒ) all day . However, the GPS shows Respondent spent the entire day at

other school sites.

1 8 . On March 22 , 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Form to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at JIS K - 8 Center all day. However, the

GPS shows Respondent spent the entire day at other school sites.

1 9 . On April 7, 2021, Respondent submitted a Daily Status Fo rm to

Mr. Felipe, stating that he had been at Dr. Rolando Espinosa K - 8 Center all

day. However, the GPS shows Respondent spent the entire day at other

school sites.

20 . D uring the COVID - 19 pandemic, Respondent s cribbled a n

unidentifiable signature on Daily Status Forms where Mr. Felipe should have

signed . Respondent then submitted the forms to Mr. Felipe .

21 . Respondent erred in his handling of Daily Status Forms. He should

have had Mr. Felipe sign them instead of scribbling an unidentifiable

signat ure on the forms. Respondent also should have identified all the school

sites he visited each day on separate Daily Status F orms.

2 2 . At the hearing, Respondent testified that he always went to the

workplaces where he was assigned. Mr. Felipe also acknowledged that

Respondent completed the work on all plumbing jobs he was assigned.

2 3 . No persuasive or credible evidence was presented at the hearing

demonstrating that Respondent made unauthorized stops.

2 4 . No evidence was presented that Mr. Felipe had any concerns about

RespondentÔs handling and submission of Daily Status Forms at the time of

his review of the forms when they were submitted by Respondent.

2 5 . RespondentÔs submission of the forms to Mr. Felipe, and Mr. FelipeÔs

review of the forms , occurred over a period of many months. As part of his

duties, Mr. Felipe went to RespondentÔs job sites.

2 6 . Had Mr. Felipe been concerned about Respondent Ôs conduct of

scribbling a signature on Daily Status Forms that should have been signed by

Mr. Fel ipe , and not completing the form as required to show multiple stops at

school sites , he should have said something to Respondent at the time he

reviewed the forms and checked on RespondentÔs job sites .

2 7 . It was not until sometime after April 27, 2021, that the School Board

conducted a GPS tracking review of the vehicle driven by Respondent , and

review ed RespondentÔs Daily Status Reports.

2 8 . The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the hearing

demonstrates that Respondent violated School Board Policy 4210 L. B y failing

to identify all the school sites he visited each day on separate Daily Status

Forms and scribbling a signature on the form in the space reserved for

Mr. Felipe , Respondent failed to maintain honest y in all dealings .

RespondentÔs conduct also violated School Board Policy 4210.01 because it

was untruthful . However, t he School Board failed to present persuasive and

credible evidence demonstrating that Respondent Ôs conduct violated School

Board Policy 4 210 Q , S , or any other provision of School Board Policy 4210.01 .

2 9 . The School Board failed to present persuasive and credible evidence

that Respondent violated School Board Policy 8700. Although RespondentÔs

handling and submission of the Daily Status Forms to Mr. Felipe was

dishonest , t he School Board failed to demonstrate th at Respondent

repeatedly made unauthorized stops in the vehicle from January 20 2 1

through April 20 2 1, and forged t he signature with corresponding employee

numbers on daily status report forms, as alleged in paragraph eight of the

Notice of Specific Charges. The School Board failed to demonstrate that

RespondentÔs submission of the Daily Status Forms amount ed to an

intentional, false representation, or concealment of a material fact in order to

personally benefit or induce another to act to his/her detriment.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

30 . DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(20 21 ).

31 . Respondent is a n Ñ educational support employee Ò as that term is

defined in section 1012. 40 ( 1 ) (a) , Florida Statutes . The School Board has the

authority to suspend and terminate educational support employees pursuant

to section 1012. 40 (1)( c ). Section 1012.40(1)(c) authorizes the termination of

educational support employees for reasons stated in the applicable CBA .

32 . The CBA provides that employees who have not complied with Sch ool

Board policies and/or department regulations may be dismissed or suspended

for up to 30 calendar days without pay.

33 . The School Board has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that Respondent committed t the violations alleged i n the Notice of

Specific Charges. Cisneros v. Sch. Bd. of Miami - Dade Cnty , 990 So. 2d 1179 ,

1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008 ) .

34 . The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by Ñ the

greater weight of the evidence Ò or evidence that Ñ more likely than not Ò tends

to prove a certain proposition . Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla.

2000) . The preponderance of the evidence standard is less stringent than the

standard of clear and convincing evidence applicable to loss of a license or

certificati on . Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA

2008).

35 . Whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of

ultimate fact to be determined by the trier - of - fact in the context of each

alleged violation . Holmes v. Turlington , 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA

1985); McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

36 . The Notice of Specific Charges alleges that Respondent violated

Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056(2). Section 1012.33(1)(a) and

(6)(a) provide, in pertinent part, that instructional staff may be suspended

during the term of their employment contract only for Ñ just cause. Ò

§ 1012.33(1)(a) and (6)(a), Fla. Stat . Ñ Just cause Ò is defined in

section 1012.33(1 )(a) to include Ñ misconduct in office .Ò

37 . Section 1001.02(1), Florida Statutes, grants the State Board of

Education authority to adopt rules pursuant to sections 120.536(1)

and 120.54 to implement provisions of law conferring duties upon it.

38 . Consist ent with this rulemaking authority, the State Board of

Education has defined Ñ misconduct in office Ò in rule 6A - 5.056(2), which

provides:

(2) Ñ Misconduct in Office Ò means one or more of the

following:

(a) A violation of the Code of Ethics of the Educ ation

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 Florida 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 Ô s learning

environment; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacher Ô s ability or his

or her colleagues Ô ability to effectively perform

duties.

39 . Respondent is not an instructional staff employee. Rather, Respondent

is an educational support employee. Accordingly, rule 6A - 5.056(2) is

inapplicable to the instant case. Miami - Dade Cnty . Sch. Bd. v. Fleites , Case

No. 21 - 0067 , ¶ 94 - 97 (Fla. DOAH Nov. 22, 2021; MDCSB Feb. 15, 2022).

40 . School Board Policy 4210 , St andards of Ethical Conduct , provides, in

pertinent part:

All employees are representatives of the District and

shall conduct themselves, both in their employment

and in the community, in a manner that will reflect

credit upon themselves and the school system.

A support staff member shall:

L . Maintain honest y in all dealings;

* * *

Q. not submit fraudulent information on any

document in connection with employment.

41 . School Board Policy 4210.01, Code of Ethics, provides, in pertinent

part:

All members of the School Board, administrators,

teachers and all other employees of the District,

regardless of their position, because of their dual

roles as public servants and educators are to be

bound by the following Code of Ethics. Adherence to

the Code of Ethics will create an environment of

hone sty and integrity and will aid in achieving the

common mission of providing a safe and high quality

education to all District students.

* * *

Application

This Code of Ethics applies to all members of the

Board, administrators, teachers, and all o ther

employees regardless of full or part time status. It

also applies to all persons who receive any direct

economic benefit such as membership in Board

funded insurance programs.

Employees are subject to various other laws, rules,

and regulations inclu ding but not limited to The

Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in

Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct of

the Education Profession in Florida, F.A.C. Chapter

6A - 10.081, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and

Employees, found in F .S. Chapter 112, Part III, and

Policy 3129, which are incorporated by reference and

this Code of Ethics should be viewed as additive to

these laws, rules and regulations. To the extent not

in conflict with any laws, Board policies, or

governmental regulati ons, this Code of Ethics shall

control with regard to conduct. In the event of any

conflict, the law, regulation, or Board policy shall

control.

Fundamental Principles

The fundamental principles upon which this Code of

Ethics is predicated are as follow s:

* * *

D . Honesty Ï Dealing truthfully with people, being

sincere, not deceiving them nor stealing from them,

not cheating or lying;

* * *

H. Respect Ï Showing regard for the worth and

dignity of someone or something, being courteous

and polite, and judging all people on their merits. It

takes three (3) major forms: respect for oneself,

respect for other people, and respect for all forms of

l ife and the environment.

I. Responsibility Ï Thinking before acting and being

accountable for their actions, paying attention to

others and responding to their needs. Responsibility

emphasizes our positive obligation to care for each

other.

Each employe e agrees and pledges:

A. To abide by this Code of Ethics, making the well -

being of the students and honest performance of

professional duties core guiding principles;

B. To obey local, State, and national laws, codes, and

regulations;

C. To support the principles of due process to protect

the civil and human rights of all individuals;

D. To treat all persons with respect and to strive to

be fair in all matters;

E. To take responsibility and be accountable for

his/her actions;

* * *

G. To coo perate with others to protect and advance

the District and its students;

42 . School Board Policy 8700, Anti - Fraud, provides, in pertinent part:

The District will not tolerate fraudulent, illegal, or

otherwise unethical activities and employees must

report them. These activities could result in criminal

prosecution and disciplinary action may also be

taken .

A. Scope

This policy applies to any fraud, or suspected fraud,

involving elected officials, employees, consultants,

vendors, contractors, outsid e agencies and

employees of such agencies, and any other parties

with a business relationship with the District.

B. Policy

Fraud and fraudulent activity is strictly prohibited.

* * *

C. Definition

Fraud is defined as the intentional, false

representation or concealment of a material fact in

order to personally benefit or induce another to act

to his/her detriment, and includes:

1. falsifying, unauthorized altering, or forging

District documents, incl uding but not limited to:

* * *

c. electronic or printed files, photographic records or

audio records that are maintained by the District, or

accounts belonging to the District;

* * *

10. Using District equipment or work time for any

outside business activity.

43 . Turning to the present case, the School Board proved , by a

preponderance of the evidence , that Respondent violated School Board Policy

4210L . As detailed above, by failing to identify all the school sites he visited

each day on separate Daily Status Forms and scribbling an unidentifiable

signature on the forms in the space for Mr. Felipe to sign, Respondent failed

to maintain honesty in all dealings. RespondentÔs conduct also violated School

Board Policy 4210.01 because it was untruthful. However, the School Board

failed to prove , by a preponderance of the evidence , that Respondent violated

School Board Policy 4210Q , S , or any other provision of School Board

Policy 4210.01.

44 . The School Board failed to present persuasive an d credible evidence

that Respondent violated School Board Policy 8700 . Although RespondentÔs

handling and submission of the Daily Status Forms to Mr. Felipe was

dishonest, the School Board failed to demonstrate by persuasive or credible

evidence that Respondent made unauthorized stops in the vehicle from

January 20 2 1 through April 20 2 1 and forged the signature with

corresponding employee numbers on Daily Status Forms, as alleged in the

Notice of Specific Charges. The School Board failed to demonstrate that

RespondentÔs submission of the Daily Status Forms amounted to an

intentional, false representation, or concealment of a material fact in order to

personally benefit or induce another to act to his/her detriment.

45 . This case is unlike the facts pres ented in Miami - Dade C ounty School

Board v. Fleites , Case No. 21 - 0067 (Fla. DOAH Nov. 22, 2021; MDCSB

Feb. 15, 2022) . In Fleites , an e lectrician was found sleeping in his work truck

during work hours. A subsequent review of the GPS tracker demonstrated

that on multiple occasions during 2019 , Mr. Fleites had driven to his home

during work hours and to numerous other unidentified locations . In addition,

Mr. Fleites had been suspended by the School Board in 2010.

46 . In the present case, Respondent testif ied that he always went to the

workplaces where he was assigned. Mr. Felipe also acknowledged that

Respondent completed the work on all plumbing jobs he was assigned. The

GPS tracker shows that Respondent went to school sites on each of the dates

in questi on.

47 . No persuasive or credible evidence was presented at the hearing

demonstrating that Respondent made unauthorized stops and Mr. Felipe did

not have any concerns about RespondentÔs handling and submission of Daily

Status Forms at the time of his revi ew of the forms when they were

submitted by Respondent. Mr. Felipe went to RespondentÔs job sites and

reviewed the forms. Had Mr. Felipe been concerned about RespondentÔs

conduct of scribbling a signature on Daily Status Forms that should have

been signed by Mr. Felipe, and not completing the form as required to show

multiple stops at school sites, Mr. Felipe should have said something to

Respondent at the time he reviewed the forms and checked on RespondentÔs

job sites.

Penalty

48 . The School Board seeks the ultimate penalty of termination based on

allegations of fraud that were not proven.

49 . The School Board also abandoned the allegations in paragraph nine of

the Notice of Specific Charges, which alleged that Ñ[o]n or about May 4, 2021,

Respondent behaved unprofessionally and engaged in a verbal altercation

with another employee.Ò

50 . The School Board also did not prevail under rule 6A - 5.056(2) and other

S chool Board policies alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.

51 . The School Board also failed to offer into evidence the CBA provision

governing progressive discipline.

52 . Nevertheless, Respondent is governed by the same CBA addressed in

Miami - Dade C ounty School Board v. Fleites , Case No. 21 - 0067 (Fla. DOAH

Nov. 22, 2021; MDCSB Feb. 15, 2022), which incorporates the concept of

progressive discipline in administering discipline . Bell v. The Sch. Bd. of

Dade C nty ., 681 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(reversing penalty of

dismissal based on progressive discipline policy in CBA).

53 . Article XI, section 1, of the C BA provides, as quoted in Fleites and in

RespondentÔs Proposed Recommended Order :

The Board and the Union recognize the principle of

progressive discipline. The parties agree that

disciplinary action may be consistent with the

concept of progressive discipline when the Board

deems it appropriate, and that the degree of

discipline shall be reasonably related to the

seriousness of the offense and the employeeÔs record.

54 . Turning to the instant case, Respondent has been employed by the

School Board as a journeyperson /plumber since 2006. The only discipline on

RespondentÔs record is a single reprimand issued by the School Board on

June 18, 2021, after the alleged conduct giving rise to the allegations against

Respondent in paragraph eight of the Notice of Specific Charges.

55 . Respo ndent has performed his job as a journeyperson/plumber

competently for approximately 16 years and should not be given the ultimate

punishment of termination based solely on his poor handling and submission

of Daily Status Forms, particularly where Mr. Feli pe acknowledges that

Respondent performed the work; Mr. Felipe reviewed the forms and went to

RespondentÔs job sites; and it was not demonstrated that Respondent

obtained a financial gain and , therefore, committed fraud by virtue of his

conduct.

56 . Under the particular facts of this case, the undersigned finds that an

appropriate penalty is a 30 - calendar day suspension without pay.

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that the Miami - Dade County School Board enter a final order

rescinding the proposed termination ; upholding a 30 - calendar day suspension

without pay ; and reinstating Respondent to the position of

journeyperson/plumber with back pay (except for the 30 - calendar d ay period

of suspension without pay).

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 5 th day of October , 2022 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

D ARREN A. S CHWARTZ

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 5 th day of October , 2022 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Adolfo Antonio Gil, Esquire Michele Lara Jones, Esquire

(eServed) (eServed)

James Richmond, Acting Gen eral Counsel David H. Nevel, Esquire

(eServed) (eServed)

Dr. Jose L. Dotres , Superintendent

(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

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.