STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALICIA A. HART, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-1318

) DOUBLE ENVELOPE CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held pursuant to notice on January 15, 1992, in this case by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, to consider the

allegations that Petitioner was discharged by Respondent because she was handicapped.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Alicia A. Hart, pro se

1037 East 222nd Street Bronx, New York 10469

For Respondent: Robert G. Riegel, Jr., Esquire

Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A.

2065 Herschel Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32203

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Did Respondent discriminate against Petitioner in her employment because of a physical handicap?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner was employed by Respondent. While working for Respondent, she incurred a job related injury and received workman compensation benefits to include light duty. She was discharged by the Respondent, and filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). The Commission conducted an investigation and determined that Petitioner had not been discriminated against. The Commission advised Petitioner of her right to an administrative hearing on its decision, and Petitioner timely filed a request for hearing.

At the formal administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified in her own behalf. The Respondent called several witnesses who testified about Petitioner's injury, her employment, and her performance. The Petitioner introduced Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent introduced Exhibits 1a-k, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13b, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 25.

Respondent filed a Proposed Order containing proposed findings of fact which was read and considered. The Appendix to this Recommended Order states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, Double Envelope Corporation (Double Envelope), is engaged in the manufacturing and printing of envelopes and has a plant in Gainesville, Florida. (Tr. 252)

   
   

2. Petitioner, Alicia Hart, became a full-time employee of Double Envelope in Gainesville, Florida in April 1987. (R. Ex. 18)

   
   

3. Petitioner worked from April 1987 until July 14, 1989, and during most of that time she held the position of inspector/operator on the second shift in the Open-End Department. (Tr. 57)

   
   

4. The Open-End Department manufactures small and large envelopes which are open on one end. (Tr. 198-99)

   
   

5. In August 1987, Petitioner viewed a film strip on safety and inspecting of envelopes, and she signed a form reflecting that she had viewed the film and that she understood the importance of safety and production of quality merchandise. (Tr. 62, R. Ex. 14)

   
   

6. The film strip presented by Double Envelope is one of several ways inspector/operators learn how to produce and inspect quality envelopes. (Tr. 197)

   
   

7. Inspector/operators also learn about their jobs through employee orientation. A memorandum describing the procedures for producing quality envelopes is posted on each envelope making machine. (Tr. 197-98, R. Ex. 6)

   
   

8. The memorandum on procedures for inspecting quality envelopes provides in pertinent part as follows:

   
   

   Checking Envelopes

   1. When envelope comes off your machine, check your perforations, seal gum, side gum and bottom gum, and envelope fold . .

   2. If any of the above checks does not meet your inspection, turn your machine off and ask

      
      

      (R. Ex. 6)

      your adjuster to check your machine.

   3. When running a job, do not close your cartons until you start your 2nd layer on a skid then inspect envelopes again.

      
      

      1. Petitioner understood that inspection of the envelopes was an important part of her job. (Tr. 60)

         
         

      2. During her employment, Petitioner worked most of

         the time in the small open-end (S.O.) department, and was very familiar with the small open-end machines. (Tr. 60)

         
         

      3. Mr. Durette was foreman of the Open-End Department and was Petitioner's supervisor throughout her employment at Double Envelope. (Tr. 197, 199)

         
         

      4. Mr. Durette taught the Petitioner the particulars

         of her job as an inspector/operator, showing her (a) how to fan through the stock that she put on the machine to make it easier for the machine to push envelopes through the machine; (b) how to fan through the envelopes after she picked them up and checked the quality of the envelopes, the gum, the seal, and the perforations; (c) how to pack the envelopes in cartons; and

         (d) how to pull out and replace any bad envelopes she might find. (Tr. 200)

         
         

      5. Throughout her employment, Petitioner had problems getting along with various coworkers and supervisors. (Tr. 200- 01, 249, R. Ex. 1-A)

         
         

      6. On several occasions before July 1988, Mr. Durette verbally counseled Petitioner concerning her attitude and failure to get along with other employees. (Tr. 201, 203)

         
         

      7. Mr. Durette gave Petitioner a written warning on July 7, 1988, for her failure to follow the instructions of an adjuster. An adjuster adjusted the machine to make quality

         envelopes. An adjuster was authorized to supervise inspector/operators. (Tr. 201-03, 106, R. Ex. 1-A)

         
         

      8. In this warning, Mr. Durette informed Petitioner that "next time this may result in a suspension." (R. Ex. 1-A)

         
         

      9. The July 1988 warning was issued around the time the Petitioner first reported problems with her hands at Double

         Envelope. The date she reported the problems she was having and the date the report were formalized are not certain.

         
         

      10. On February 24, 1989, Petitioner reported to work. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner told Mr. Durette that she needed time off from the job right away to take care of a garnishment problem. Mr. Durette informed Petitioner that he needed her to

          work and denied her permission to leave. Petitioner then requested to see Audrey Weeks, Production Coordination, about leaving work that day and Mr. Durette agreed. (Tr. 55, 67-68, 204-06)

          
          

      11. Petitioner saw Ms. Weeks that day and advised

          Ms. Weeks that she needed to go to the courthouse right away to handle a problem with a garnishment. Ms. Weeks advised her that she would have to see Mr. Durette regarding the matter. (Tr.

          129)

          
          

      12. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner went to talk to Vice President and General Manger of the plant, Holt Vaughan. Petitioner asked Mr. Vaughan if she could leave work to go to the courthouse to handle the garnishment. Mr. Vaughan denied Petitioner permission to leave and told her she was needed to work. (Tr. 254, 55)

          
          

      13. After being told by her supervisor, the production supervisor, and general manager she could not have time off, Petitioner left the plant. Mr. Vaughan, seeing Petitioner leave a few minutes later, told her that if she left, she would have to suffer the consequences. (Tr. 255)

          
          

      14. Petitioner left the workplace and did not return that day. (Tr. 204)

          
          

      15. On February 27, 1989, Mr. Durette issued a written notice to Petitioner suspending her for one day, with pay, in accordance with Company policy. (Tr. 204, 255, R. Ex. 1-B)

          
          

      16. Petitioner was not on light duty status at the time of this suspension. (Tr. 250)

          
          

      17. After investigation, Plant Manager Wayne Secrist upheld the suspension and issued a typewritten memorandum to Petitioner on March 2, 1989, warning Petitioner that "any further problem whatsoever with Petitioner will result in her dismissal." (R. Ex. 1-C)

          
          

      18. On March 14, 1989, Mr. Durette issued a written message warning to Petitioner because she left a dirty gum table and paper around and on her machine the previous day. (Tr. 205- 06; R. Ex. 1-D)

          
          

      19. At the time the March 14, 1989, warning was issued, Petitioner was not on light duty status and had not filed a workers' compensation claim regarding her left wrist. (Tr. 207, 268-69, R. Ex. 24)

          
          

      20. Petitioner talked to Ms. Weeks around March 15, 1989, about her left wrist and filed a workers' compensation claim that day. (Tr. 268-69)

      21. Ms. Weeks referred Petitioner to the Company doctor, Dr. Evans, who in turn referred Petitioner to a hand specialist, Dr. Osborne, at the Ramadan Institute. (Tr. 48-49, 271)

          
          

      22. Dr. Evans placed Petitioner on light duty status in March 1989, and Dr. Osborne confirmed that status. (Tr. 50, 271- 72)

          
          

      23. Ms. Weeks, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Secrist determined what Petitioner's light duty job would be based upon a

          description of light duty status from their insurance company and a telephone conversation between Ms. Weeks and Dr. Osborne.

          Petitioner was restricted on the amount of weight she would lift and the size of the envelopes she would handle. (Tr. 256-57, 272)

          
          

      24. Double Envelope assigned Petitioner to work on a

          S.O. machine which is slower in speed than other machines, and the lifting required is lighter. The work assigned was consistent with the doctor's limitations. (Tr. 109-10, 208, 256- 57, 272)

          
          

      25. Petitioner advised Ms. Weeks that she had discussed her situation with Dr. Osborne, and that she had described what she was doing to Dr. Osborne. The Petitioner advised Ms. Weeks that there was no problem with the machine she was running, and that her duties were consistent with the doctor's orders. (Tr. 272)

          
          

      26. Petitioner advised Mr. Vaughan that the work she

          was doing on light duty in March 1989 was consistent with what she thought the doctor had requested for light duty. (Tr. 256)

          
          

      27. Petitioner's condition in 1989 did not interfere

          with her carrying out the responsibilities of her light duty job and she was able to keep up on the machines. (Tr. 109-10)

          
          

      28. In April 1989 both Petitioner and another employee refused to work on their machines. (Tr. 215, 256, 264)

          
          

      29. Mr. Vaughan and Ms. Weeks met with Petitioner on

          the day she refused to continue working on her machine. Mr. Vaughan asked if Petitioner was having a problem due to her injury. The Petitioner advised Mr. Vaughan that the work she had been assigned was consistent with her restrictions, and she was not having a problem. Mr. Vaughan replied that she should either continue to do this work or see her doctor to get a written statement that she was not able to perform the work for that reflected new duties. Petitioner returned to work. (Tr. 256, 265)

          
          

      30. On April 5, 1989, Mr. Durette gave Petitioner a written warning advising her that a number of envelopes which she

          had produced on April 4, 1989, were stuck together in cartons with her signature. (Tr. 208, 212, R. Ex. 1-E)

          
          

      31. On April 5, 1989, Mr. Durette discovered additional envelopes which she had packed and which were sticking together. Mr. Durette gave her another written warning on April 5, 1989, on this deficiency. (Tr. 211, 213-14, R. Ex. 1-F)

          
          

      32. Mr. Durette was able to determine that Petitioner had packed the defective envelopes from her signature on the cartons, the job numbers on her time sheet, and the department log with matching job numbers. (Tr. 209, 213)

          
          

      33. Operator/inspectors were suppose to shut down their machines if their inspections revealed a problem and call an adjuster. The adjuster would fix the machine and the operator would restart the machine. On several occasions prior to May 1, 1989, Mr. Durette talked to Petitioner about her failure to keep her machine running, and her failure to immediately report jams. (Tr. 214-15)

          
          

      34. On May 1, 1989, Mr. Durette gave a written warning to Petitioner concerning her poor attitude and low production. (Tr. 214, R. Ex. 1-G)

          
          

      35. On May 2, 1989, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Osborne and she brought back to Ms. Weeks a note from

          Dr. Osborne releasing her to return to work performing her normal duties with no restrictions. (Tr. 38, 111, R. Ex. 13-B)

          
          

      36. Several employees complained to Mr. Durette at various times that Petitioner was not coming back from breaks on time and that she was taking more time than was allotted. (Tr. 217)

          
          

      37. As a result of these complaint, Mr. Durette counseled the Petitioner about returning from breaks and lunch on time. He still received complaints about Petitioner's lateness. (Tr. 218)

          
          

      38. On May 12, 1989, Petitioner left for her lunch break at approximately 7:00 p.m. and called in sometime during

          her 30 minute break to advise that she had car problems and would be a little late. Petitioner came back into the plant at 7:45 p.m., but she indicated on her time sheet that she returned at 7:30 p.m. Petitioner was warned by her supervisor about returning to work on time and reporting her time accurately. (Tr. 87, 218, R. Ex. 3)

          
          

      39. From May 8, 1989, through the date of her discharge, Petitioner did not complain that she was having any problems with her hand or that her wrist was locking up. (Tr. 234, 273-74)

      40. On June 13, 1989, Mr. Durette issued a written message warning to Petitioner with regard to her failing to attend four consecutive safety meetings. (Tr. 219, R. Ex. 1-J)

          
          

      41. On June 19, 1989, at the end of her shift, Petitioner told Mr. Durette she could not come in the following day because she had real estate business. Mr. Durette advised her that she could not take the day off and that he needed her to work and she would have to be there. Petitioner asked if she could make up the time, work another shift, or make up the production some other way, but was denied the time off. (Tr. 94, 222)

          
          

      42. On June 20, 1989, Petitioner took the day off without calling in, despite Mr. Durette's instructions on the previous day. (Tr. 222)

          
          

      43. On June 23,1989, Mr. Durette issued a written notice of disciplinary action, warning Petitioner concerning her insubordination and misconduct in failing to show up for work on June 20, 1989. The notice of disciplinary action warned her that this was a final warning and any further violations "will result in your dismissal from Double Envelope." (Tr. 221, R. Ex. 1-K)

          
          

      44. On July 12, 1989, Petitioner worked from 3:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on an S.O. machine manufacturing open-end photo processing envelopes for Jack Eckerd Corporation on job number 3327295. (Tr. 96-97, R. Ex. 7)

          
          

      45. The envelopes being manufactured have a flap at the

          top of the envelope, and a perforation across the end of the flap closure which was a receipt. (Tr. 60)

          
          

      46. Petitioner's job responsibilities on this job included inspecting the envelopes to ensure that they were satisfactory by looking carefully through the envelopes for the perforation and the "gum line", the area where the gum is placed to seal the flap. (Tr. 165-66, 228).

          
          

      47. Petitioner was supposed to inspect the envelopes and, as stated above, shut her machine done and notify her supervisor or adjuster immediately if she found any problems. (R. Ex. 6, Tr. 199).

          
          

      48. When inspecting the envelopes, Petitioner knew that

          she should pick up a stack of envelopes, thumb through the entire stack making a visual inspection, and look for anything that was out of place or odd. (Tr. 62-63).

          
          

      49. On July 12, 1989, Petitioner had some problems

          twice during her shift with her machine jamming, but she did not notice any problems with the perforation of envelopes. The machine was adjusted and restarted. (Tr. 105, 233).

      50. On the morning of July 13, 1989, adjusters Charles

          Wood and Bill Harmon were notified by a first shift employee that there were envelopes from the night before that had not been perforated. (Tr. 143, 167-68).

          
          

      51. Charles Wood and Bill Harmon then looked back through envelopes completed the prior night on the second shift to determine if there were any bad envelopes that had not been discovered. They found that approximately 2,000 envelopes packed the prior evening were defective in that they had no perforation. (Tr. 14, 168, 224)

          
          

      52. Messrs. Wood, Harmon and Durette determined from

          the box numbers and machine logs, and Petitioner's initials on the cartons, that on July 12, 1989, Petitioner had packed the 2,000 envelopes with defective perforations in four cartons. (Tr. 148, 167-68, 224).

          
          

      53. Petitioner acknowledged she had worked on the boxes of envelopes which contained the defective envelopes. (Tr. 98)

          
          

      54. Petitioner had not discovered and reported the

          2,000 envelopes without proper perforations before leaving her shift on July 12, 1989.

          
          

      55. Mr. Durette, with the approval of Ms. Weeks and

          Mr. Vaughan, determined to terminate Petitioner on the basis of her failure to follow instructions concerning inspection of envelopes and her poor work history over the past months. (Tr. 223, 259, 274, R. Ex. 2)

          
          

      56. At the time of terminating Petitioner, the Company officials involved in the termination decision were not aware that Petitioner had any permanent or temporary disability. The Petitioner had been returned to regular duty. (Tr. 234, 259, 274)

          
          

      57. No medical evidence exists in the record to establish that Petitioner has ever been permanently disabled. (Tr. 234, 259, 276)

          
          

      58. No evidence, medical or otherwise, exists in the record to show that Petitioner was permanently or temporarily disabled when she was discharged. (Tr. 234, 259, 274)

          
          

      59. Petitioner never submitted any information to Double Envelope from the time she returned to normal duties until the time of her termination which would indicate that she was permanently or temporarily disabled. (Tr. 234, 259, 274).

          
          

      60. Disability ratings were not issued on Petitioner's right hand until after she was terminated from Double Envelope. (Tr. 112-13)

      61. According to Petitioner's understanding, she was not diagnosed as having permanent impairment to her left wrist

          until after her termination from employment at Double Envelope. (Tr. 112-13)

          
          

      62. Shortly after her termination from Double Envelope, Petitioner understood from Ramandan Hand Institute that she should not return to the type of work she had been doing at Double Envelope. (Tr. 109)

          
          

      63. As a result, Petitioner has never applied for employment with an envelope manufacturing company since her termination on July 14, 1989. (Tr. 109)

          
          

      64. On September 5, 1989, Petitioner filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). This charge was signed by Petitioner under oath and, according to Petitioner, was accurate at the time. (Tr. 114, R. Ex 18)

          
          

      65. In her charge of discrimination, Petitioner referred to her handicap as "permanent damage to my left wrist." Petitioner did not mention her right hand or thumb anywhere in her charge of discrimination. (Tr. 115, R. Ex. 18)

          
          

      66. In her charge of discrimination, Petitioner asserted under oath that "Ms. Vicki Williams, on July 14, 1989, also wasted four boxes of envelopes on job no. 3327295, but was not reprimanded or terminated." (R. Ex. 18)

          
          

      67. Ms. Williams testified, without any rebuttal, that

          she did not run four boxes of defective envelopes on that day or any other day. (Tr. 187)

          
          

      68. Petitioner stated that in 1989 Mr. Durette allegedly referred to Petitioner and Deborah Turbyfield as "goddam cripples' or "goddam invalids." Mr. Durette denied making such a statement. (Tr. 116-17, 190-91, 234)

          
          

      69. Double Envelope has several employees who have a physical disability of some type including:

          
          

          John Durette (50% disability in left thumb) Doug Milligan (tips of two fingers missing) Betty Martin (cut finger tip off twice) Len Walton (1 leg; blind in one eye)

          
          

          (Tr. 235, 275)

          
          

      70. Double Envelope has terminated at least three other employees (Jean Robbins, Gail Montgomery, Ellen Vaughan) in recent years for running bad envelopes, where such other employees did not have any handicap or physical disability of which Double Envelope was aware. (Tr. 275)

      71. After investigating this matter, the Interim Executive Director of the FCHR issued a Notice of Determination on October 29, 1990, finding that "there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." (R. Ex. 15)

          
          

      72. After Petitioner filed a Request for Redetermination and arguments were advanced by both parties, the Interim Executive Director of the FCHR concluded that the "initial determination properly found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred." (R. Ex. 16)

          
          

          CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

          
          

      73. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1990) , (FHRA)

          
          

      74. Respondent Double Envelope is an employer within the definition of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as

          amended in Section 760.01 - 760.10, Florida Statutes (1990), (FHRA).

          
          

      75. Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with

          the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on or about September 5, 1989, alleging discrimination based on her alleged handicap, permanent damage to her left wrist.

          
          

      76. Petitioner bears the initial burden of establishing

          a prima facie case of discrimination. See Cabany v. Hollywood Memorial Hospital, 12 FALR 2020 (FCHR 1990); McDonnell Dougles

          Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

          
          

      77. Petitioner always bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent

          committed an unlawful employment practice against her. Mayo, 12 FALR at 2633; Cabany, 12 FALR at 2026.

          
          

      78. To demonstrate a prima facia case of handicap discrimination, Petitioner must prove the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

          
          

          1. she was a handicapped individual at the time of the alleged discrimination;

          2. she performed her assigned duties satisfactorily;

          3. despite her performance, she was terminated; and

          4. after her discharge, the position was filled by someone outside the protective category or other facts indicate the

             employment action was based on her alleged handicap. Mayo v. The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc., 12 FALR 2624 (FCHR 1990); Confer v. Golden Crust Bakery, Inc., 7 FALR 5341 (FCHR 1985).

             
             

      79. If Petitioner sustains her initial burden, Respondent Double Envelope is required to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Mayo, 12 FALR at 2637; See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

          450 U.S. 248 (1981). This is a burden of production only. See Burdine.

          
          

      80. Thereafter, Petitioner can prevail only by proving

          by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent Double Envelope's articulated reason(s) were simply a pretext for discrimination based upon her alleged handicap (i.e. that Petitioner's alleged handicap was a substantial and motivating factor in Double Envelope's decision to terminate her). Mayo, 12 FALR at 2638; Cabany, 12 FALR at 2026; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256;

          McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804.

          
          

      81. Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of handicap discrimination because she did not establish that she had a handicap at the time she was discharged. See Confer; Mayo.

          
          

      82. Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of handicap discrimination because she has not established that Respondent knew that she had any permanent handicap or disability existed at or about the time she was discharged. The evidence established the doctor had returned Petitioner to regular duty when she was discharged.

          
          

      83. Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of handicap discrimination because she did not show she was performing her assigned duties satisfactorily at the time of her discharge.

          
          

      84. Petitioner failed to present a prima facie case of handicap discrimination because she failed to show she was replaced by a non-handicapped employee or that other evidence indicates Respondent discharged her due to her alleged handicap.

          
          

      85. In addition, Respondent, Double Envelope showed by substantial, competent evidence that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to terminate Petitioner. Although the incident on July 12, 1989, was small, it was the culmination of a work history in which Petitioner had repeatedly left work or did not attend when she was denied time off.

          
          

      86. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of

the evidence that Respondent's articulated business reasons are a pretext for discrimination (i.e. Petitioner has failed to show that Respondent was motivated by a discriminatory intent to

terminate her).

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence contained in the record and the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, it is

RECOMMENDED Petitioner's Petition of Relief from Unlawful Employment Practice should be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February 1992.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1992.

APPENDIX

The Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order which contained proposed findings of fact. These proposed findings were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why:

Paragraphs 1-16 Adopted.

Paragraph 17 Rejected. Contrary to the most

credible evidence.

Paragraph 18-20 Adopted.

Paragraph 21 Rejected. Irrelevant. Paragraph 22-26 Adopted.

Paragraph 27 Although true, the warning in

Paragraph 28 is the important thing.

Paragraph 28-40 Adopted.

Paragraph 41 Rewritten.

Paragraph 42-54 Adopted.

Paragraph 55 Facts added to Paragraph 54. Paragraph 56-79 Adopted.

Paragraph 80 Rejected. Contrary to the most

credible evidence.

Paragraph 81-84 Adopted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Alicia A. Hart, pro se 1037 East 222nd Street Bronx, New York 10469

Robert G. Riegel, Jr., Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews &

Grogan, P.A.

2065 Herschel Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32203

Dana Baird General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT ELAST Q0 DAYS OIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN ECEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLILNE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.

Docket for Case No: 91-001318

Orders for Case No: 91-001318