Seminole County schools suspend employee after fitness-for-duty dispute; worker and residents say mold, neglect persist

The Seminole County Public Schools board voted on Nov. 18, 2025, to suspend employee Antoine Baez without pay after district officials said Baez failed to complete required medical evaluations related to a fitness-for-duty review.

Superintendent Beeman recommended the suspension, telling the board: "I recommend that mister Baez be suspended without pay." The motion was moved by Member Dellinger and seconded; the chair called a voice vote and the motion passed after several board members said "aye." The board then invited staff to speak with Baez about next steps.

The action follows months of administrative leave and a district summary presented to the board. According to district statements, Baez was placed on paid administrative leave in January 2025; a medical doctor assessed him on March 24, 2025, and found him not fit for duty and recommended further evaluations. District letters extended leave to allow for those evaluations, and the district notified Baez that failure to complete required steps by a series of deadlines could result in unpaid leave or further action, including possible termination. The district told the board the most recent required step deadline could lead to additional action through Feb. 20, 2026.

Baez used his public comment time to dispute aspects of the district's process and to press a separate set of concerns about school facilities. He criticized psychiatric evaluation requirements and described health problems he attributed to continued mold exposure and poor building maintenance, saying he had repeatedly reported broken HVAC units, leaking ceilings and other unsafe conditions. "I'm reporting neglect," he said during his remarks, arguing that his complaints were about student and staff safety.

Several public commenters echoed facility concerns and broader worries about staff accountability. Nina Sandberg, who spoke earlier in the meeting about perceived failures to hold employees accountable, said she had removed her child from the district after alleged mistreatment and urged clearer employee conduct rules. Following Baez's comments, a board representative summarized the personnel timeline and the district's fitness-for-duty steps before the board considered the suspension.

Board members did not indicate they had reached a different finding on the facilities allegations during the vote. After the motion passed, Superintendent Beeman and staff offered to meet with Baez to discuss next steps; the district also previously notified Baez that failure to complete evaluations could result in further personnel action.

The board record shows the motion carried on a voice vote; two board members explicitly vocalized "aye" during the roll call. The district did not provide a public tally of all individual votes in the meeting transcript. The recommendation and action were limited to the personnel matter before the board and did not resolve the facility complaints raised during public comment.

The board's next procedural step will be staff follow-up with Baez and any subsequent personnel processes required under district policy. The district referenced school board policy 41 61 (fitness for duty) in explaining the steps it had taken.