FRANK A. DILEO, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Dileo, a tenured teacher, challenged his dismissal by the School Board of Dade County on grounds of misconduct and insubordination. The court held that the applicable standard of proof in teacher dismissal cases is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence, and affirmed the termination.
The court held that preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard of proof in teacher dismissal cases, not clear and convincing evidence. The record contains competent and substantial evidence to support both the misconduct and insubordination charges by the preponderance standard.
[1] Teacher dismissal cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
[2] Competent and substantial evidence is sufficient to support findings of misconduct and insubordination in teacher dismissal cases.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is settled in Florida jurisprudence that the standard of proof required in teacher license revocation cases is clear and convincing evidence.”
Establishes the higher standard applies to license revocation, distinguishing it from dismissal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Dileo was a teacher on continuing contract with the School Board of Dade County. He was terminated from employment based on charges of misconduc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gross Insubordination cases and more on FLexlaw
[*884] FERGUSON, Judge.
Frank A. Dileo, a teacher'on continuing contract with the School Board of Dade County, was terminated from employment on grounds of misconduct in office and gross insubordination. He appeals the School Board’s Final Order which adopted a hearing officer’s findings of fact and recommendation of dismissal.
Dileo’s primary contentions are (1) there is no competent and substantial evidence to support either the misconduct or insubordination charge, (2) the quantum of proof necessary to support a teacher’s dismissal is clear and convincing evidence and not the preponderance of evidence standard that was applied by the hearing officer, and (3) if either of the charges is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, the ease must be remanded for reconsideration of the penalty.
We disagree that the required quantum of proof in a teacher dismissal case is clear and convincing evidence, and hold that the record contains competent and substantial evidence to support both charges by a preponderance of the evidence standard. For these reasons, it is unnecessary to address the remaining question.
It is settled in Florida jurisprudence that the standard of proof required in teacher license revocation cases is clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1987). Although not as clearly settled in Florida,1 there is considerable authority elsewhere,2 as well as implicit state case law authority, that the lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence is applied in teacher dismissal cases. In Ferris v. Austin, 487 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the court held that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the findings contained in the hearing officer’s recommended order, stating:
Nowhere did the hearing officer conclude that the standard of evidence for dismissal of a teacher was anything other than that of preponderance of the evidence. It is apparent from reading the recommended order that the hearing officer concluded that the evidence, pursuant to any standard, supported Ferris and not the School Board.
Id. at 1167 (original emphasis). It may be inferred from the above language that the hearing officer’s findings would have been upheld by the appellate court by a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Affirmed.
. The Supreme Court of Florida held, in response to the question presented, that the clear and convincing standard should be applied in license revocation cases, but expressly did not reach the question of the appropriate standard of proof for termination of a teacher’s employment. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d at 294, n. 2.
. Other jurisdictions have specifically applied the preponderance of evidence standard in teacher dismissal cases. See Board of Educ. v. Box, 191 Ill.App.3d 31, 138 Ill.Dec. 460, 547 N.E. 2d 627 (1989) ("In tenured teacher dismissal proceedings, school board must prove by preponderance of the evidence that there is a cause for dismissal.”); Short v. Kiamichi Area Vocational-Technical School Dist. No. 7, 761 P. 2d 472 (Okla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066, 109 S.Ct. 1341, 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) and 489 U.S. 1066, 109 S.Ct. 1342, 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) ("The standard of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence ... to establish that the teacher’s dismissal or nonreemployment is warranted.”); Aldridge v. Huntington Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 38 Ohio St.3d 154, 527 N.E. 2d 291 (1988) ("In teacher contract termination disputes, referee’s findings of facts must be accepted by school board unless such findings are against the greater weight or preponderance of evidence.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…r standard of proof. We disagree and find that the hearing officer and the School Board correctly determined that the appropriate standard of proof in dismissal proceedings was a preponderance of the evidence. See Dileo v. School Bd. of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The instant case does not involve the loss of a license1 and, therefore, Allen’s losses are adequately protected by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Allen also contends that the School Board did not comply with the re…
-
McNEILL v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…cNeill’s conduct impaired his effectiveness within the community. The School Board bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, each element of the charged offense which may warrant dismissal. Dileo v. School Bd. of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) (1995) provides: Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the [teac…
-
McCALISTER v. Sch. Bd. OF BAY Cnty. & Larry Bolinger, 971 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…LJ concluded, in relevant part: 70. The School Board has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it had good cause to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation to transfer Bolinger. c See Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). 72. The School Board’s responsibilities are set forth in section 1012.22(l)(a), Florida Statutes, which states ...: 2. The district school board may reject for good cause any employee nominated. 76. In this case, the Scho…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987)
- Ferris v. Austin, 487 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Kohlman v. Bob Marshall Alliance, 489 U.S. 1066 (U.S. 1989)
- Kiamichi Area Vocational-Technical Sch. Dist. No. 7 v. Short, 489 U.S. 1066 (U.S. 1989)