Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit: termination of Petitioner on the basis of handicap discrimination without reasonable accommodation.Petitioner with a morbid obesity of 400 lbs., hypertension, and osteo arthritis was terminated because she could not do her job with or without accommodation, which was not due to a handicap. Recommend dismissal of petition of charge of discrimination.

Should Respondent Division of Retirement grant Petitioner's request to be included for retirement purposes in the Special Risk Class (SRC) from July 1, 1981 through October 24, 1985? Should Respondent Division of Retirement grant Petitioner's request to be included in the Special Risk Administrative Support Class (SRASC) for the period October 25, 1985 until January 1, 1998?Case spans 17 years of statutes governing "grandfathered" correctional officer certifications and the pre-requisites to special risk and special risk administrative support class retirement classifications.

Whether Respondent's employment be terminated based on his misconduct.Assistant school principal was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia. Respondent`s contract should be terminated.

This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent provided dental treatment which was below minimum acceptable standards of performance. At the hearing, the Petitioner called Charlene Willoughby and Richard J. Chichetti, D.D.S., as witnesses. The Respondent called Victoria Osborn and Stewart Dropkin, D.D.S., as witnesses and also testified on his own behalf. Both parties also offered documentary exhibits and transcripts of deposition testimony. A transcript of the hearing was filed on June 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed until July 31, 1987, (subsequently extended) within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders on August 3, 1987, and the despondent filed an amended proposed recommended order on August 4, 1987. On August 3 and 4, 1987, the Respondent also filed separate documents specifically addressed to the issues raised by the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.Evidence establishes several violations of 466.028(1)(y). Appropriate penalty is $1000 fine and 1 year probation