STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-0314
)
DEBORAH MONLEY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this matter by David M. Maloney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 29, 1997, in Tarpon Springs, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire
Kelly L. Soud, Esquire
Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A.
109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639
Tampa, Florida 33601
For Respondent: William Newt Hudson, Esquire
23 West Tarpon Avenue
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent's employment as a bartender/waitress at the Tarpon Springs Golf Course was terminated by the City of Tarpon Springs in accordance with the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On January 17, 1997, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a memorandum from Albert J. Michetti, Personnel Director for the City of Tarpon Springs. Forwarded in accordance with an agreement on file between the City of Tarpon Springs and the Division of Administrative Hearings, the memorandum asked that an Administrative Hearing Officer (Administrative Law Judge) be assigned to find facts and draw conclusions of law in an appeal pending before the City's Civil Service Board.
The appeal had been taken by Respondent, Deborah Monley, through her attorney. It contested Ms. Monley's termination of employment by the City as noticed in a letter dated November 20, 1996, which listed two bases for termination: one, involving abandonment of the work station without notifying her supervisor and following proper procedure; the other, involving failure to report for duty as scheduled with full knowledge that her presence at work was required.
The request was granted by the Division of Administrative Hearings when the case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard Hixson. Judge Hixson set final hearing for May 14, 1997. Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Continuance was later granted and hearing was rescheduled for August 29, 1997. In the meantime, the case was re-assigned to the undersigned.
At final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and submitted evidentiary documents. Petitioner's Exhibits numbered one through five were offered and received into evidence. Among these was the affidavit of Peggy Johnson (Petitioner's No. 5), admitted over the objection of Ms. Monley. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 was offered and admitted. The proceeding was taped but the recording was not transcribed.
Proposed recommended orders were timely filed by both parties on September 18, 1997.
FINDINGS OF FACT
An Employer-Employee Relationship
From December 20, 1995 until her termination on November 14, 1996, Deborah Monley was employed by the City of Tarpon Springs as a part-time bartender/waitress at the City's municipal golf course. Her duties at the course's "inside" bar consisted of serving beer and wine and food such as hot dogs and packaged snacks.
Prior to the initial date of her employment with the City, the golf course was privately owned with Ms. Monley as the employee in charge of the course's inside bar. The City kept Ms. Monley as an employee when it acquired the golf course on December 20, 1995, making that day her first as a City employee.
Management and Staffing
During the time covering the events pertinent to this case, the golf course was supervised by Mike Hoffman, the Golf
Course Manager. He was assisted by Michael Houlis. As an assistant manager, Mr. Houlis was primarily responsible for the food and beverage operations of the golf course. Since
Ms. Monley was a food and beverage employee, her supervision fell in the first instance to Mr. Houlis, although Mr. Hoffman had ultimate supervisory authority over her position.
The bar operated seven days a week. In the fall of 1996, it was staffed in the main by three employees who were assigned regular shifts. Ms. Monley, normally on duty four days a week, worked the most hours of the three. A second employee, Tom Bowman, worked two to three days per week. Peggy Johnson, the last of the three regular employees, worked one day a week. From time-to-time, the City would call on Pearl Standahl to fill in for the three regular employees on an as-needed basis. But whether Ms. Standahl would provide assistance or not in any given instance was nothing upon which the City could rely with certitude. The City's arrangement with her allowed her to decline for whatever reason whenever requested to work.
As obstacles arose on different occasions to the ability or convenience of any one of the three regular employees to be at work, another would cover for the absent employee. If, for example, an emergency came up for one, another employee would fill in or if one employee needed to switch a day, another would usually be willing to accommodate the switch. Management did not object to these informal arrangements among the employees so long
as the snack bar was covered by any of the three regular employees or Ms. Standahl.
Autumn of 1996
The events critical to the facts of this case occurred in the fall of 1996.
The Tournament
In late October, one of the major annual events for the golf course was under way: a tournament involving a group of golfers from North Carolina. A reciprocal event was held each year in North Carolina at another time of the year for members of the Tarpon Springs Golf Course. These reciprocal golf tournaments had been annual events for some 25 years.
During the tournament in 1996, Ms. Monley met and became friendly with one of the seventy or so North Carolina golfers. He was identified at hearing only as "Terry." Ms. Monley attended some of the tournament's events in Terry's company over the several days the tournament lasted.
A Request for Time Off
On Monday, October 28, 1996, Ms. Monley asked
Mr. Houlis if she could take off Friday, November 14, 1996 and Monday, November 17, 1996 as vacation days so that she would be able to enjoy a long weekend in North Carolina. Aside from her developing relationship with Terry, Ms. Monley felt that she deserved the time off. The only real time away from work she had had in the recent past was sick leave following surgery.
Although she had wanted to use accrued vacation leave, she had been required to work the entire summer sometimes five or six days a week from 7 a.m. until 6 or 7 p.m., because, in her view, the bar was not then adequately staffed.
In response to the request, Mr. Houlis advised Ms. Monley that there was "no problem" as long as there was
someone to cover for her on the two days she would have otherwise worked. Mr. Houlis planned on asking Tom Bowman if he could cover for Ms. Monley.
Domestic Violence
On the evening of October 29, 1996, Ms. Monley and her two children were subjected to or present at home during acts of domestic violence committed by Ms. Monley's former boyfriend.
Ms. Monley called the police. After responding, one of the officers advised Ms. Monley that she should obtain a "domestic violence" injunction against her ex-boyfriend as soon as possible the next day, October 30.
October 30
The following day, October 30, 1996, was a Wednesday. Wednesday is a busy day of the week at the golf course. Typically, the course is crowded in the early morning. The snack bar is busy as golfers arrive and enjoy coffee or a breakfast snack while they wait for their tee time.
At home early that morning, Ms. Monley faced a difficult decision. Her eight-year-old son was not feeling well
and did not go to school. Ms. Monley feared that her ex- boyfriend might come to the house. He had been on prescription medication, drinking, and irate the night before when the domestic violence had occurred. She worried that he could pose a danger to her son. She also knew that she was expected at work on what promised to be a busy day. Furthermore, she had to obtain the "domestic violence" injunction as soon as possible.
She decided she would go to work, ask to be allowed to leave after the morning rush (around 8 to 8:30 a.m.), obtain the injunction and return home well before noon, all the while hoping her ex-boyfriend would not have come by. She hoped, too, that arrangements to cover her position at the course could be made by Mr. Houlis during the time she handled the morning rush. To assist her son in case her former boyfriend showed up while she was at work or seeking the injunction, Ms. Monley instructed her twelve-year-old daughter, whom she regarded as unusually mature for her age, to remain at home with the eight-year-old.
Ms. Monley reported to work as scheduled. She met with Mr. Houlis and advised him of the domestic violence the evening before. She also told him that her son was ill at home and that she needed to leave work to attend to him as well as obtain the injunction.
Mr. Houlis told Ms. Monley that he would attempt to have another employee cover for her as soon as possible so that she could leave. Ms. Monley left to attend to her job, but she
did not think Mr. Houlis appreciated the gravity of the situation or its exigent nature.
Nonetheless, Mr. Houlis called Tom Bowman right away. He did not reach him but left a message on his answering machine. Mr. Bowman was good about returning calls so Mr. Houlis felt that he would hear from him in a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Houlis was fully aware that Ms. Monley needed time off during the day, but he was not aware of the direness of her predicament. He felt that Ms. Monley had informed him of the circumstances in a "casual" way rather than in a way that indicated that she needed to leave as soon as possible, if not immediately.
While Mr. Houlis attempted to reach Mr. Bowman, Pearl Standahl arrived at the course, not for work, but to play golf. Ms. Monley asked her to fill in for her. Ms. Standahl refused.
At approximately 10:30 a.m., Styllianous Splinis (known as "Stan") entered the bar area. Stan Splinis is a City employee who works at the golf course handling all the money that constitutes golf course revenue and manning the pro shop where most of the money is received. Mr. Splinis, however, is not under the supervision of golf course management. Instead, he is supervised by the City Clerk. Although he had occasionally filled in at the bar, bartending is not part of his regular duties. He has been informed by the Clerk's office that the City Clerk disapproves of his doing so.
By the time of Mr. Splinis' entry into the bar area the morning of October 30, 1996, Ms. Monley had become agitated.
Mr. Houlis did not appear to her to be making much of an effort to get a replacement. Ms. Standahl had preferred to play golf rather than help her out in a moment of real need. But most of all, she was worried about the safety of her children and the need to obtain the injunction.
Ms. Monley believed, moreover, that Mr. Houlis was not making much of an effort because of a previous private encounter in which she had rebuffed what she interpreted as Mr. Houlis' romantic interest in her. What she saw as indifference stemming from resentment was exacerbated during the recent tournament for the North Carolina golfers. Mr. Houlis, at the time having trouble with his girlfriend, inquired about Ms. Monley's relationship with her boyfriend, who would soon be charged with domestic violence. Ms. Monley believed that Mr. Houlis stopped talking to her when he learned that she had met Terry during the tournament. (Mr. Houlis disputes Ms. Monley's interpretation and assumptions; he believes that their relationship outside of work had never been anything more than casual friends.)
As soon as Mr. Splinis appeared, Ms. Monley's state of agitation turned to action. She locked up her cash drawer, handed Mr. Splinis the key, and left work without clearing her departure with Mr. Houlis.
In Ms. Monley's absence, Mr. Splinis took over at the bar. He informed Mr. Houlis of Ms. Monley's departure and worked the rest of her shift.
When Ms. Monley reached her home, her ex-boyfriend was present. As she feared, he was threatening her son. She called 911. By the time the police arrived, the ex-boyfriend was gone.
One of the police officers who responded, John Ulrich, spoke to Ms. Monley after an unsuccessful search of the neighborhood. Officer Ulrich advised Ms. Monley to remain at home. Later in the afternoon, Mr. Houlis called Ms. Monley to check on her. He, too, told her to stay home and assured her that her position was covered for the afternoon. Ms. Monley did not attempt to obtain an injunction. She remained home for the rest of the day with her children.
October 31
The following day, Ms. Monley, acting on the advice of the police, went to the State Attorney's office to swear out a warrant for her ex-boyfriend's arrest. The warrant was issued. Ms. Monley decided to abandon any attempt to obtain the injunction, thinking that the warrant was at least as effective at curbing her former boyfriend's threatening behavior as the injunction would be.
October 31 was also a day Ms. Monley was scheduled to work. When she arrived at the golf course, Mr. Hoffman and
Mr. Houlis asked her to meet with them. Still not appreciating the seriousness of Ms. Monley's situation the day before, they told her that while sympathetic to her situation, they believed she should not have left work without permission and without following proper procedure for closing out the cash drawer. They also advised her that she was subject to discipline. No discipline, however, was decided upon or meted out.
Ms. Monley left the meeting upset. As she emerged from the room, she bumped into Officer Ulrich. Officer Ulrich had come to the golf course to check on Ms. Monley in follow-up of her case and to tell her that the State Attorney would be considering the filing of charges. She was informed of the time of the deliberations since her presence would be needed.
Ms. Monley, in tears, said to Officer Ulrich something to the effect of, "See, I told you I would get in trouble for leaving work."
Officer Ulrich entered Mr. Hoffman's office and undertook to explain to management the real danger in which he perceived Ms. Monley to be. He entered the room where the meeting had just taken place and said to both Mr. Hoffman and
Mr. Houlis something like, "I wouldn't want to be the one who had prevented Ms. Monley from obtaining an injunction."
Mr. Houlis paid the officer no real attention because, in his view, the officer did not understand the other side of the
story, that being management's concerns about a departure with neither notice nor observance of proper procedure.
Early November
On November 1, 1996, or thereabouts, Tom Bowman gave management the required ten days notice of his resignation effective a few days before the commencement of Ms. Monley's planned vacation in North Carolina. This development, unforeseen when Ms. Monley had first requested time off, meant to Mr. Houlis that it would be difficult to schedule replacements for
Ms. Monley on the two days she asked to be on leave.
In the meantime, Ms. Monley, believing that there should be no difficulty in covering her vacation days, purchased discount non-refundable airline tickets for the planned trip.
When Ms. Monley heard that Tom Bowman was quitting, she was not concerned that it would be a problem because she thought Peggy Johnson, Pearl Standahl or Stan Splinis could cover for her.
On November 3, 1997, a few days after Mr. Bowman's announcement, Mr. Houlis told Ms. Monley that her request for vacation was denied. (The parties are in agreement about this fact. See Respondent's Proposed Order of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, pgs. 8 and 11.) Mr. Houlis needed Ms. Johnson to cover some of the time Mr. Bowman would have worked had he stayed. He thought it would be difficult for Ms. Johnson to cover both Mr. Bowman's normal working days and the two days
Ms. Monley would be gone because it would be too much work for Ms. Johnson at her age. Ms. Standahl was never a sure replacement and Mr. Splinis stepping up as a replacement was frowned on by the City Clerk's office.
November 7
On November 7, Peggy Johnson returned to work after leave she had taken. Ms. Monley asked her if she could cover for her on November 14 and 17. Ms. Johnson replied that she could as long as management approved.
Since the vacation time request had been disapproved by Mr. Houlis, Ms. Monley went directly to Mr. Hoffman to ask him about the request for time off. Ms. Monley told Mr. Hoffman that Ms. Johnson could cover her shifts but she neglected to tell
Mr. Hoffman that her request had already been denied by
Mr. Houlis. Mr. Hoffman replied, "As long as the shifts are covered, no problem."
Ms. Monley felt reassured. She now had Mr. Hoffman's conditional consent. She remained, moreover, convinced despite Mr. Houlis' misgivings that the two days could be covered among Peggy Johnson, Pearl Standahl and Stan Splinis. In the worst case, Ms. Monley felt that Mr. Houlis, himself, could cover the bar, if necessary.
By now, Ms. Monley had formed the intent to go to North Carolina no matter what. Among other reasons for her determination were that she felt she had given appropriate
notice, had made informal arrangements to have the shifts covered which management usually sanctioned, had purchased non-refundable airline tickets in reliance on the timely request, thought she had been denied a vacation in the past when she clearly deserved one, and had obtained the general manager's conditional consent. Finally, she could see no real reason when she examined all the circumstances why her position could not be covered on the two days she wanted to be off.
Ms. Monley's determination did not take into account several factors. She had not been given unequivocal permission by the Golf Course Manager to take the time off. The agreement with Peggy Johnson was explicitly subject to management's approval, approval Mr. Houlis was not likely to give. And
Mr. Houlis, Ms. Monley's immediate supervisor, had told her that the request was denied.
When Mr. Houlis saw Peggy Johnson on November 7, after Ms. Monley had spoken to her, he approached her to ask her to cover for Bowman after November 11. Ms. Johnson told him about the arrangement she had just made with Ms. Monley. In the wake of this information, Mr. Houlis conferred with Mr. Hoffman about the dilemma. The two agreed that Ms. Monley would not be able to take the days off.
The Eve of the Trip and Plans Carried Out
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Houlis heard from several golf course employees that Ms. Monley intended to take off the two
days that she had requested for vacation, November 14 and 17, no matter what Mr. Houlis' position might be. On Thursday, November 13, 1997, the day before the trip was to commence,
Mr. Hoffman called Ms. Monley into his office to make sure that she understood management's position. In the presence of
Mr. Houlis, Golf Course Manager Mike Hoffman, the head of management at the course and Ms. Monley's ultimate on-site supervisor, informed her that she did not have permission to take the vacation days requested. He told her clearly that she was expected to be at work on both the fourteenth and the seventeenth of November.
Ms. Monley went to North Carolina as planned.
Return to Work
On November 19, 1996, Ms. Monley reported to work. She was told her conduct on October 30 and November 14 and 17 was under review.
On November 20, 1996, Ms. Monley was given notice of her termination in a letter signed by Golf Course Manager Mike Hoffman. The cited basis for termination was Rule 18, Section 5 of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. The notice stated:
On October 30, 1996, you abandoned your station around 10:00 a.m. and did not return until your next scheduled work day. You left without notifying your supervisor of your departure, even though he was readily available and accessible. In addition, on October 30, 1996, you left your cash draw
without properly accounting for it and closing it out.
On November 14, 1996, and November 17, 1996, you failed to report for duty as scheduled. Your absences on these dates were with the full knowledge as communicated by your supervisor on November 13, 1996, that your presence was required on these scheduled dates.
Petitioner's No. 1.
After her termination, Ms. Monley looked for jobs in the food industry, mainly in positions dealing directly with the public. For example, she applied at Chili's for a job as a waitress. In March of 1997, however, Ms. Monley, then more than four months pregnant, abandoned her search for work serving food since it had become futile in her condition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent filed a timely request for an appeal from her dismissal with the City's Civil Service Board. Section 3 of Article III of the Civil Service Rules requires the board to conduct a hearing on the appeal or refer the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a hearing officer. The Civil Service Board elected the latter option. By virtue of the board's election and a written agreement with the City of Tarpon Springs, The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Also see Section 120.65(7), Florida Statutes.
Rule 18 of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations governs suspension, demotion, and dismissals. Section 5., governs "Dismissals":
The City Manager, or his designee may discharge an employee over whom he has authority for one or more of the cause[s] listed under Section 1 of this Rule, the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Personnel Policies,. . ., or for other equally good cause.
Respondent's Ex. No. 1, p. 63.
Among the causes listed as "just causes" for dismissal are (g) and (k):
(g) Has . . . absented himself frequently from duty.
(k) Has violated any lawful and reasonable .
. . order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given to him by his superior officer when such . . . failure to obey amounts to insubordination . . .
Id., at 45, 46.
Although this case involves three instances of absences from work, subsection (g) of Rule 18, Section 5.1 is not at issue. Ms. Monley has not been "frequently" absent from duty nor has the City so contended. This case involves only two sets of absences: the first for part of the day, October 30, 1996; the second on November 14 and 17, 1996. It also involves, in the case of the second absence, a charge of insubordination.
The October 30 Absence
While there may be some relationship between the October 30 absence and the November two-day absence, the City's
case is not well-served by citing the events of October 30 as a basis for dismissal.
Expressly inherent in Rule 18 is that suspensions, demotions, and dismissals are to be for "just cause."
Ms. Monley's actions on October 30, 1996, do not constitute "just cause" for her dismissal. To the contrary, Ms. Monley acted reasonably when she left work at 10:30 a.m. on the morning of October 30. In fact, under the circumstances, the City should appreciate that she came into work at all that morning.
As a single parent, Ms. Monley's statement to
Mr. Houlis the morning of October 30 that her son was sick at home should have sufficed for her to have been given permission to leave work immediately without having to serve coffee or whatever was required by the rush of Wednesday morning golfers. The remainder of what she told Mr. Houlis, that her family had been victimized the night before by domestic violence and that she needed to obtain an injunction, only further supported her need to leave work as soon as possible, not sometime, sooner or later, whenever she could be spared.
When Ms. Monley departed, she may not have followed precise procedures as far as properly accounting for her cash drawer and closing it out. But, she locked the drawer and gave the keys to the person most suitable to take charge of the money she had taken in that morning: Mr. Splinis, the City Clerk's representative at the golf course responsible for dealing with
the golf course's revenue. Under the circumstances, Ms. Monley behaved in the City's interest at the potential expense of her children: she assisted the City in getting through a busy time at a moment of personal crisis, whether she had clearly communicated the depth of the crisis or not, and she left her money in the hands of the person most appropriate to take charge of it: Stan Splinis.
In fairness to Mr. Houlis, it appears that he and
Ms. Monley, for whatever reason, were not communicating well over the two to three week period during which events critical to this case unfolded. But between Ms. Monley and himself, as the person in the supervisory position, Mr. Houlis was more responsible for getting to the bottom of the communication difficulty.
Mr. Houlis' insensitivity to the plight of Ms. Monley is underscored by his response to Officer Ulrich's advice, that Officer Ulrich did not understand the other side of the story. As far as the October 30 incident goes, there is no "other" side to the story. It plainly does not serve as just cause for Ms.
Monley's dismissal.
The November Absences
Ms. Monley's November absences are another matter. However logical her justification for thinking management should have been able to cover her position easily, the fact remains that she was told in the clearest terms before she left for North Carolina that she was required to be present at work. Taking the
trip and not reporting for work after having received the directive from Mr. Hoffman constituted insubordination if the directive, as required by subsection (k) of Rule 18, Section 1, was both "lawful and reasonable."
Reasonableness of the Direction
The lawfulness of the direction provided by management on November 13, 1996, is not contested by Ms. Monley. But she maintains that she was justified in taking the time off for a combination of reasons, in other words, that the direction, under the circumstances, was not reasonable. A determination of reasonableness requires that the situation be examined from the perspective of management as well as from the perspective of
Ms. Monley. From management's point of view, the requested vacation came at an unfortunate time once Mr. Bowman resigned. There was no evidence he could be replaced in less than two weeks. Ms. Johnson could not physically replace both Mr. Bowman and Ms. Monley. Ms. Standahl could not be counted on, and
Mr. Splinis was not an appropriate replacement. In essence, this left no one to take Ms. Monley's place. Furthermore, Ms. Monley was threatening to go no matter what, not the kind of attitude which encourages cooperation on the part of all concerned.
Ms. Monley, on the other hand, was in a difficult spot when Mr. Houlis told her on November 3 that she was not given permission to miss work on November 14 and 17. Afterward she obtained Mr. Hoffman's conditional consent but only through
neglecting to inform him that Mr. Houlis had already made a decision. In the end, none of the circumstances, the timeliness of the request, the lack of a summer vacation, the purchase of a non-refundable ticket, the informal arrangement with Ms. Johnson, the conditional consent of Mr. Hoffman, or her personal interest in going to North Carolina justify Ms. Monley's deliberate flaunting of a direct order from her ultimate supervisor at the golf course. Ms. Monley is guilty of insubordination.
Penalty
Insubordination is a ground for dismissal. In the typical case of insubordination, dismissal is an appropriate penalty. But dismissal seems a harsh result when all of the facts of this case are considered. A better penalty would be a suspension without pay for the length of time since November 20, 1996 until consideration of the case by the Civil Service Board. The Board should re-instate Ms. Monley as a City employee without back pay but give her a position at a comparable level as a City employee at a post somewhere other than at the Golf Course.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED
That the Civil Service Board for the City of Tarpon Springs dismiss the October 30, 1996, incident as a ground for discipline and, with regard to the November absences, discipline Ms. Monley short of dismissal: suspension without pay from November 20,
1996, until the Board's consideration of this recommended order, with reinstatement as a City employee in a position outside the City Golf Course.
DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DAVID M. MALONEY
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Kelly L. Soud, Esquire
Thompson Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. Post Office Box 639
Tampa, Florida 33601-0639
William Newt Hudson, Esquire
23 West Tarpon Avenue
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 22, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 08/29/97. |
| Sep. 18, 1997 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Proposed Order of Findings of Fact and Conclusions filed. |
| Aug. 29, 1997 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Aug. 26, 1997 | (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile). |
| May 08, 1997 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/29/97; 9:00am; Tarpon Springs) |
| May 01, 1997 | Petitioner`s Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/14/97; 9:30am; Tarpon Springs) |
| Jan. 31, 1997 | Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 23, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jan. 17, 1997 | Agency referral memorandum; Request for Administrative Hearing; Agency Action letter (2); Notice of Appeal, letter form; List of Civil Service Board Members filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 22, 1997 | Recommended Order | Discipline was not justified as to absence from employment after domestic violence but justified in another instance of absence which was insubordination. |
