STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ANNA DE LA ROSA-CODA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-4401
) PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF ) PASCO COUNTY, INC., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in this case in Brooksville, Florida on November 4, 1994, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Anna de la Rosa-Coda, pro se
7484 Canterbury Street Spring Hill, Florida 34606
For Respondent: Alfred W. Torrence, Jr., Esquire
Thornton, Torrence & Gonzales, P.A. 6645 Ridge Road
Port Richey, Florida 34668 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against in employment by the Respondent because of her disability.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
On August 3, 1993, Petitioner herein, Anna de la Rosa-Coda, filed a Petition for Relief with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, (Commission), alleging that Respondent, the Private Industry Council of Pasco County, Inc., (Council), had unlawfully discharged her from employment because of her handicap, lung cancer. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer, and this hearing followed.
At the hearing, Petitioner testified in her own behalf and presented the testimony of Armando Rivera, her cousin by marriage; and, by deposition, Lillian Gonzalez, a friend and former coworker. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 8 and 10 and 11. Respondent presented the testimony of Gary
Burlingame, Executive Director of the Council; Mary Miller, Agnes P.
Phillips, and Harriet Chambers, employees of the Council when Petitioner was there; and Melissa G. Perry, a former client of the Council. Respondent also introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through J.
No transcript was provided and neither party submitted Proposed Findings of Fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Ms. Coda, began working for the Council as a project counselor in August, 1989, dealing with AFDC referrals. In June, 1990, she was also assigned unemployed parents cases in the Council's Dade City office. In February, 1991, she started experiencing personal problems. Her marriage of 33 years was in trouble and this affected her. She immediately sought medical help. She had a young daughter, who was getting married, but Petitioner was not in good health. She had high blood pressure and was 50 pounds overweight. Her doctor put her on a diet and an exercise regimen which she carried over to her work.
In June, 1991, F. Shaheen left her position with the Council as a counselor in New Port Richey and recommended to Petitioner that she apply for the vacated position there because it would have been much closer to her home. Petitioner did apply but was told by her supervisor, Mr. Steinberg, that she would still have to handle her unemployed parent clients in Dade City if she got the assignment. This would not have helped her, so she withdrew her request.
In July, 1991, Petitioner came to work one day and found Mr. Steinberg and others going through her records. She was thereafter given a reprimand and a three day suspension for poor records, which she accepted. This was stressful for her because she had never been reprimanded before. In late July, 1991, she went to see her doctor because of a gall bladder attack. The doctor recommended she have surgery to remove it during which he would also do a laporoscopic examination. When she went in for the work-up, a nodule was found on her left lung. The doctor recommended it be removed because he thought it might be cancer.
In October, 1991, Ms. Coda found out that her husband, with whom she was still having trouble, was living with another woman. When she went back to the doctor at that time, he said the nodule had enlarged and recommended immediate surgery. Ms. Coda had already planned a vacation for that time, but when her sister stated that she had arranged for Ms. Coda to get a second opinion on her condition at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, Ms. Coda took her vacation leave and went there. Before leaving, she told Mr. Steinberg where she was going and he questioned her need for a second opinion.
Nonetheless, on January 8, 1992, Ms. Coda, who had decided to have the recommended surgery, advised her supervisor that the operation was scheduled for shortly thereafter, but before it could be done, on January 17, 1992, she was advised that her insurance would not cover the cost of the operation if done in New York. She immediately contacted her office and told them what was happening. She said she was coming back to the local area and was waiting for the airline to get her a seat for her return, and advised the staff that she would be back as soon as she could. Notwithstanding, on January 13, 1992, Mr. Steinberg, by letter, advised her that he was aware she had not had the surgery, complained that she had not contacted him for 10 days or provided the requested
physician's statement to support her absence, and further advised that if she did not contact him regarding her intentions as to work, he would terminate her for absence without leave. She returned to work on January 20, 1992
Ms. Coda also received a memorandum from Mr. Steinberg, dated January 24, 1992, advising her of his receipt of reports of her substandard performance, directing her to return to work immediately, pending her surgery, and, in addition, outlining the specific tasks upon which he wanted her to concentrate. When she got back to work, she was told not to deal with clients and was counselled by both Mr. Steinberg and the Council Executive Director, Mr. Burlingame, repeatedly, about her failure to communicate with the office. Mr. Burlingame recognized she was under stress but nonetheless threatened her with dismissal which would result in her losing her health insurance coverage. Mr. Burlingame told her to get her health problems resolved and the operation scheduled, but also advised her she was not to handle clients. Ms. Coda accepted this because she believed that if she fought the reprimand she would be discharged.
The operation was set for February 10, 1992. When she contacted her physician and told him what was going on, the medications for stress were increased. Nevertheless, Mr. Steinberg showed her no sympathy. On February 1, 1992, Ms. Coda received a reprimand for previous misconduct which allegedly occurred in January. She thereafter submitted a letter from her doctor which indicated she would be out of work until at least the end of April.
Ms. Coda left the hospital after her surgery on February 18, 1992 and went home in the care of a housekeeper and nurse. The extent of her surgery, which left her with 42 stitches on her left back, made it difficult for her to do much because she is left handed. She was also given extra pain medications due to a rib which was broken during the operation. She was not required to undergo either radiation or chemotherapy because her cancer was rated as stage one. She does not know the current status of her health because, since she has been discharged, she cannot afford to go in for the checkups. She was able to drive when she came back to work, however, and she could write by hand, but her arm got tired if she had to write more than usual. She could use the phone and could interview clients.
During the third week of March, 1992, even though Ms. Coda had submitted a letter from her doctor indicating she should be off work until April, she was called by Mr. Steinberg and asked to come back to work early because the other counselor had to take off for elective surgery. Her primary doctor did not want her to go back to work and she explained her limitations to Mr. Steinberg who replied that in that case she would have to be replaced. Because she had a lot of surgery follow-up appointments to be met and needed her health insurance coverage, she got another doctor to give her a limited work release conditioned upon her being placed in an area where there would be no smoking, no dust, no chemicals, and, though not specifically stated therein, for no more than six hours per day.
Ms. Coda went back to work on April 22, 1992. She was put into a retraining program but she considers it to have been more an update of procedures implemented during the period of her absence. She does not consider it to have been retraining because of poor performance. Evidence to the contrary, from Mr. Burlingame and her coworkers is more persuasive, however.
After about two weeks back on the job, for reasons unknown to her, Ms. Coda's office was moved from the front of the building to the rear where, she contends, all the smoking was done. As she relates it, the smokers kept the rear door to the outside open so they could hear the phone if it rang, and she asserts there was someone outside the door smoking seven or eight times a day. Others said she was moved because of her loudness.
Ms. Coda was in the office for four weeks after her surgery. During that time, she kept her door closed because of the smoke which would be blown back into the building through the open back door. Her requests to have the back door to the outside kept closed were refused and this added stress. In addition, she was required to commute between the office in New Port Richey and the office in Dade City to manage the unemployed parent program. These allegations of stress and working conditions are confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Rivera, her cousin by marriage, and Ms. Gonzalez, an employee of the Department of Labor and Employment Security who was aware of the situation.
Ms. Coda claims that throughout the time she worked for the Council, she was never advised of any client complaints against her, but, eventually, was fired by Mr. Burlingame who used as a reason her poor performance. He told her he had received complaints of her lack of empathy toward clients. She denies this and claims to be very empathic. She believes her dismissal was a culmination of the harassment she had received from Mr. Burlingame. He had told her he wanted to be in first place in a case competition, but it was impossible to achieve this within the three weeks available. She also claims he was unfriendly toward her and would not speak to her, though he was quite friendly to others. In substance, she claims, her firing was due to her medical problems and the fact that they would add to the cost of health insurance paid by the Council.
Mr. Burlingame places a somewhat different perspective on Petitioner's story. As he relates it, Petitioner was hired to work with extremely disadvantaged clients who experience many barriers to employment. She was to evaluate the clients to select the best program for them and then to work with the clients to see they successfully completed the program and went to work.
The New Port Richey office case load is from one hundred twenty to one hundred sixty clients per counselor. The Dade City case load is much smaller, with each counselor managing from twenty to fifty or sixty clients. Petitioner worked, primarily, in the Dade City office with one other counselor, Ms. Phelps, and a receptionist, marketing representative and office manager. Mr. Steinberg was the operations supervisor physically located in the New Port Richey office, but he filled in as a counselor in the Dade City office in the absence of Ms. Phelps.
The criteria for employment as a counselor with the Council includes a four year degree in psychology or social work and two years experience. Petitioner did not meet these criteria, but she was hired because she was what they could get for the salary they paid. The salary levels for counselors are now much higher and they are able to attract better qualified people.
Mr. Burlingame made the final decision to terminate Petitioner based on Mr. Steinberg's recommendation for dismissal. When Burlingame received this recommendation, he called Petitioner in to his office in New Port Richey, on June 30, 1992, to hear her side of the story. During their conversation, he told Petitioner that some clients had expressed concern about working with her
and he asked her to explain. In response she became hostile and defensive, and it became clear to him that she was out of control. At that point he terminated her employment.
By this time, Petitioner had received several prior reprimands and Mr. Burlingame was concerned that she was not keeping up the required documentation which supports the Council's expenditure of federal funds. She had trouble following rules and was repeatedly counselled about doing audit ready work. It was clear she did not develop a clear plan for client direction. Much of this was evident long before she was ever diagnosed with cancer and had nothing to do with her absences on that account.
Mr. Burlingame's agency follows the state's anti-harassment policy.
He supports treating employees and clients with dignity and respect. The policy made clear an alternate avenue for voicing complaints by employees, but Ms. Coda never filed any complaint with him or the alternate. By the same token, he was not aware of any smoking problems at the Dade City office, and he has no knowledge of any smoking inside the building after promulgation of the Council's smoking policy. Employees smoked outside the building and he believes that even if the door was left open for phone purposed, the building dynamics would tend to take the smoke out from a building rather than into it. In any case, neither Petitioner nor anyone else ever complained to him about smoke conditions in the office.
Petitioner did not discuss with Mr. Burlingame that she was going away for cancer treatment. Her leave request indicated she was making a family visit, (but this was before Petitioner's sister called with the appointment in New York). He did not know she had cancer before she left. The Council has a health plan for which it pays the premium for the employee and twenty-five percent of the premium for the family. It does not get into the approval of bills paid by the insurance carrier and Mr. Burlingame knew nothing of her condition. The second opinion she sought and the surgery she had were referred by the primary care physician. Mr. Burlingame was not a part of the decision making process in denying her surgery in New York, nor was the Council. Because of the terms of the insurance policy the Council had, Petitioner's surgery would have had no impact on the premium the Council paid in the future, and Mr. Burlingame was not concerned about the potential for increased premiums.
The Council imposes a six month probationary period on new employees to give them the opportunity to become competent in doing their work consistent with federal guidelines. It was only when Mr. Burlingame felt that Petitioner had crossed the line from merely incompetent to potentially dangerous to the development of the clients that he determined to terminate her employment. Several clients were seen to be crying when they left the Petitioner, and some complained to him about the way they were treated by her. Some said they would drop out of the program rather than work with her. This is inconsistent with the thrust of the program and not good for the rating process.
In addition, Petitioner allegedly did not return from leave when required. Mr. Burlingame received a memorandum from Mr. Steinberg that Petitioner had not returned and he didn't know when she would return. On January 7, 1992, Mr. Burlingame was advised by Mr. Steinberg that Petitioner would return on February 10, 1992. In reality, she came back to work on January 20, 1992 without having had her surgery. At that time, management was quite concerned about the program. January is the start of a new semester in the various tech schools and it is imperative that students be lined up for entry. All this work was supposed to have been done before Petitioner left on vacation.
However, while she was gone, clients came in to check on their paperwork, and when her files were examined, they were found to be in such disarray no one could figure out what was going on. This was the second time Petitioner's files were found to be unsatisfactory while she was gone.
As a result, when Ms. Coda came back to work in January, Mr. Burlingame felt it imperative she not deal with clients but, instead, work with her files to make them acceptable, especially in light of the fact she was due to have surgery and would be out for two months thereafter. She was not terminated at that time. However, after her surgery, when she was called to see if she could come back somewhat sooner than the doctor's predicted April 21 date, she said she would not be back until May, although, as was noted previously, she actually came back to work on April 22. When that was reported to him, he directed Mr. Steinberg to give her retraining in procedures upon her return. The first three items of that retraining were elementary procedures. Only the fourth segment consisted of updating. For training purposes, Mr. Burlingame equated her with a new employee who needed training in the basics of her job.
Joellyn Chancey is administrative coordinator at the Council and supervises three sections, including management information. This section tracks the paperwork of the individual counselors. She found a lot of mistakes in Petitioner's paperwork which required it to be sent back for re- accomplishment - more so than with the other counselors. Ms. Chancey could cover for Petitioner on the more routine matters. It was the more complex matters which had to be returned. In her opinion, Petitioner was the worst counselor as far as paperwork was concerned. All counselors use the same coding and Petitioner would often leave off the required codes, omit required steps, and the like.
When Petitioner came back to work after her surgery, she was to be retrained. There were few changes made during her absence and the training administered was mostly matters which had not changed. Most of the matters Petitioner had to do were routine and not specific to her. They consisted of matters which Petitioner should have learned over time but still got wrong on a regular basis. In addition, Petitioner had a relatively small case load compared to other counselors, managing approximately thirty cases as compared to between one hundred fifty or more for the others in the New Port Richey office.
Mary Miller was a coworker of Petitioner, and while she did not work directly with her, observed her from time to time, and periodically took over Petitioner's clients when Petitioner was gone. The first time she did this, Ms. Miller found a lot of clients were not being called in in a timely manner, so she did what had to be done to bring Petitioner's cases current. On the second occasion that Miller worked with Petitioner's files, she found that all the files she had updated on her first substitution had been untouched since that time. The files were not updated as required, which could result in clients missing out on services and their income being cut off.
On none of the conversations Ms. Miller had with Petitioner did Petitioner ever mention how her cancer surgery had affected her work nor did she complain about smoke in the office. In fact, Ms. Miller never saw any employees smoking in the Dade City office. She, too, has just returned from an extensive medical problem, and at no time was she ever harassed because of it or given any indication Council officials were concerned about the cost of her treatment.
Agnes Phelps, a smoker, worked with Petitioner at the Dade City office, and before the nonsmoking policy came into effect, smoked in the office. After the policy was promulgated, however, neither she nor anyone else smoked inside the building and she could not detect any odor of smoke inside the building. By the same token, she cannot recall Petitioner as having ever complained about the smoke.
Ms. Phelps has heard and observed Petitioner counseling clients. She found Petitioner to be somewhat loud in speech and there have been times when Petitioner wouldn't see clients without an appointment and would not try to accommodate them. Her tone of voice was "off-putting" at times and gave the impression she didn't want to be bothered. As a result, several clients determined not to deal with Petitioner and Miller took them over.
As to the clients she took over from Petitioner, Ms. Miller was concerned about the non-positive termination rate, (those who did not graduate and go to work), which seemed to be a larger percentage of Petitioner's client load than with other counselors. Much of this, she believes, was due to a lack of strong relationship between the client and the Petitioner. In addition, it was impossible to track down a lot of Petitioner's clients. All this had an adverse effect on programs and clients.
According to Harriet Chambers, the office manager for the Dade City office, the move of Petitioner's office was prompted by Petitioner's loudness which made it advisable to move her from the front of the building to the back. The move, decided upon by both Steinberg and Ms. Chambers, did not result in a complaint by Petitioner. Her only expressed concern was with furniture and she never requested an accommodation due to her physical condition.
Ms. Chambers also had the opportunity to observe Petitioner's interaction with clients. Petitioner's voice was high pitched and clients would come out of her office either angry or in tears. Often Petitioner would decline to see clients without an appointment- a practice contrary to the Council's policy to treat clients with dignity. Petitioner would also characterize clients as dead beats, lazy, back stabbers, no good, and the like in dealings with other agencies. This, too is not appropriate.
When Petitioner left for New York, she told Ms. Chambers she was going to see a doctor for a second opinion, but the office had trouble finding out when she would be coming back. Petitioner did not return on time, and failed to meet with clients with appointments who came in as scheduled.
During 1992 Melissa G. Perry was a client of Petitioner to whom she went with problems relating to day care and the like. Ms. Perry expected Council employees to help her get a job, give her financial advice, and raise her self esteem. This did not happen, however. On one occasion, she had a complaint about the manager of her day care facility and called on Petitioner for assistance. Petitioner agreed to see her if she would hurry over. When Ms. Perry explained the problem, Petitioner dismissed it saying it was not her problem. As a result, when Ms. Perry had other problems, she didn't want to talk to Petitioner because Petitioner showed no compassion or understanding. In addition, according to Ms. Perry, Petitioner was loud and cold and gave the impression she didn't care about her. This hurt Ms. Perry's feelings and lowered her self esteem.
The evidence, therefore, indicates Petitioner was discharged because she was rude, unprofessional and uncaring in her treatment of her clients. Her discharge had nothing to do with her physical condition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 750.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any person because of such person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status, and in this case Petitioner claims Respondent discriminated against her because of her handicap, her lung cancer.
Petitioner had the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). The Florida Commission on Human Relations had adopted this evidentiary model, Kirkpatrick v. Howard Johnson Co., 7 FALR 5468 (FCHR 1985).
The thrust of Petitioner's claim is that her discharge from employment was based on Respondent's fear that her lung cancer, and the treatment she received therefor, would cause a large increase in Respondent's health care insurance premiums, and that her discharge allegedly for her poor work performance and relationship with clients is but a subterfuge for the real reason.
The evidence shows that Petitioner underwent surgery for lung cancer (nodules on her lung), and subsequently returned to work after a period of recovery. There is no evidence that her condition persists or that her ability to accomplish her work suffered in any way because of the existence of the condition which, it must be said, has not been shown to still exist. Petitioner claimed she has not returned to her physician for follow-up because she cannot afford to pay for the service, yet the are myriad opportunities in the community for Petitioner to receive free medical follow-up as necessary. Consequently, Petitioner has not really established that she has a handicap.
Assuming she does, however, she has not shown that her handicap was the cause of her termination. To be sure, she has not been treated with courtesy, understanding and consideration by her employer in the person of Mr. Steinberg, if her testimony can be believed. There is no reason to doubt her. In addition, the likelihood is great that the physical working conditions she was required to endure at the Dade City office were less than optimum. It is probably true that the smell of smoke invaded her space after her office was removed to the back of the building near where the smokers congregated.
However, she has not shown that her termination was based on her inability to properly perform due to her condition. To the contrary, even though, admittedly, she was under a lot of stress due to the uncertainty of her physical condition, the pressure being placed on her by her supervisor, and the working conditions she was forced to live with, the fact remains there is ample evidence of the inadequacy of her performance totally unrelated to any of those conditions. Her failure to keep her files current; her failure to use proper
codes; her unwillingness or inability to correct her performance even when advised of her shortcomings; and her demonstrated lack of rapport with clients are more than adequate grounds to terminate her employment.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed in this matter by Anna de la Rosa-Coda, against the Private Industry Council of Pasco County, Inc. be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
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 6th day of January, 1995.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Anna de la Rosa-Coda 7484 Canterbury Street
Spring Hill, Florida 34606
Alfred W. Torrence, Jr., Esquire Thornton, Torrence & Gonzalez, P.A. 6645 Ridge Road
Port Richey, Florida 34668
Sharon Moultry Clerk
Commission on Human Relations
John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Dana Baird General Counsel
Commission on Human Relations
John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
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 least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 30, 1995 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
| Feb. 08, 1995 | (Respondent) Brief to Petitioners Notice of Exceptions to Recommend an Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1995 | Letter to Dana Baird from Anna De La Rosa-Coda (cc: Hearing Officer) re: Exception to the Recommended Order by Arnold H. Pollock dated January 6, 1995 filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 11/04/94. |
| Nov. 30, 1994 | Deposition of L. Gonzalez filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1994 | Order Granting Extension of Time sent out. |
| Nov. 17, 1994 | (Petitioner) Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Takine Deposition; Letter to AHP from A. Torrence (RE: scheduling of deposition) filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1994 | (Petitioner) Request for 10 Day Extension filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1994 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 20, 1994 | Letter. to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary sent out. (hearing set for 11/4/94; 11:00am; Brooksville) |
| Oct. 20, 1994 | Amended Order Setting Hearing (as to location only) sent out. (hearing set for 11/4/94; 11:00am; Brooksville) |
| Oct. 05, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1994 | CC Letter to Alfred W. Tarrence, Jr. from Anna R. De La Rosa (re: Interrogatories) filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1994 | Order Changing Time of Hearing sent out. (hearing will commence at 11:00am on 11/4/94 rather than 9:00am) |
| Aug. 22, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance; Request for Rescheduling of Hearing; Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Anna De La Rosaw/Respondent`s, Private Industry Council of Pasco County, Inc`s Interrogatories to Petitio ner, Anna De La Rosa rec |
| Jul. 11, 1994 | Order Setting Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/4/94; 9:00am; Brooksville) |
| Jul. 05, 1994 | Letter to AHP from G. Burlingame (RE: available dates for hearing) filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1994 | Letter to AHP from Anna R. De La Rosa (re: correspondence informing petitioner of an order accepting remand and requiring coordination and response) filed. |
| Jun. 22, 1994 | Order Accepting Remand And Requiring Coordination And Response sent out. (remand of this matter from Commission on Human Relations is accepted) |
| Jun. 17, 1994 | Order Authorizing Section 120.57(1) Formal Proceeding w/cover Letter filed. (From Sharon Moulry) |
| Jun. 09, 1994 | Order Authorizing Section 120.57(1) Formal Proceedings filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1993 | Recommended Order of Dismissal sent out. CASE CLOSED, petitioner exceeded time limit granted her by failing to meet the August 1, 1993 filing deadline. |
| Sep. 13, 1993 | Letter to AHP from Anna R. De La Rosa (re: response to respondent's request to Dismiss) w/supporting attachments filed. |
| Sep. 02, 1993 | Order to Show Cause sent out. |
| Aug. 30, 1993 | Letter to AHP from Anna R. De La Rosa (re: petitioner's representation) filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1993 | Letter to L. Roeser from D. Lambert re: court report confirmation sent out. |
| Aug. 26, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/16/93; 1:00pm; New Port Richey) |
| Aug. 25, 1993 | (Respondent) Response to the Petitioners Statements filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Letter. to AHP from Garry A. Burlingame re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | Letter to AHP from Anna R. De La Rosa (re: Initial Order) filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Aug. 06, 1993 | Transmittal of Petition; Complaint; Notice of Determination; Petitionfor Relief; Notice of Reopened Complaint to Allow Time for Filing Petition for Relief; Notice of Dismissal; Request to Reopen Case, Letter form from Petitioner; Notice to Respondent's N |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 10, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to show her discharge from employment was based on handicap and not on substandard performance. |
