STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 96-1757
)
STEVEN E. BELFORD, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on November 6 and 7, 1996, and April 1, 1997, at West Palm Beach, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire
One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
For Respondent: Jacob A. Rose, Esquire
Victor B. Gent, J.D. The Rose Law Firm, P.A.
215 Fifth Street, Suite 305 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with Petitioner.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about February 8, 1996, Steven E. Belford, hereinafter Mr. Belford, was dismissed from all employment by the Palm Beach County School Board, hereinafter School Board, on the charge of gross insubordination. By letter dated March 4, 1997,
Mr. Belford requested a formal hearing. By Petition for Dismissal dated April 2, 1996, the School Board referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses1 and entered thirteen exhibits into evidence.
Respondent presented the testimony of one witness and entered one exhibit into evidence.
A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript.
The parties filed post-hearing submissions which have been considered in this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In 1987, Steven E. Belford, hereinafter Mr. Belford, began his employment with the Palm Beach County School Board, hereinafter School Board, as a School Police Officer.
From 1991 through April 1995, Mr. Belford considered the conduct of the School Board’s employees, including supervisory and management personnel, towards him to be racially hostile.
During this same time period, from 1992 through April 1995, the School Board considered the conduct of
Mr. Belford towards co-workers, supervisors, superiors, and students to be inappropriate.
On April 10, 1995, a meeting, which could affect
Mr. Belford’s employment, was held regarding his job performance. At this meeting, Mr. Belford was represented by counsel from the Police Benevolent Association, hereinafter PBA. Also among those present at the meeting was James Kelly, Chief of the School Police for the School Board. Chief Kelly was concerned with
Mr. Belford’s conduct in the performance of his duties. During this meeting, Mr. Belford described the problems that he was experiencing in the work place.
After listening to Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly’s concerns extended to the safety of students, staff, and visitors at the school to which Mr. Belford was assigned. As a result of this meeting, Chief Kelly determined that Mr. Belford should and would be required to undergo a fitness for duty examination.
Mr. Belford’s PBA counsel advised him to undergo the fitness for duty examination. Even though Mr. Belford’s position was that there was no basis for the examination and that it was, therefore, inappropriate, he agreed to the examination.
Mr. Belford was willing to comply with whatever was required of him, even though he may not agree, to keep his job.
It is undisputed that the referral of Mr. Belford for a psychological evaluation was reasonable.
On April 25 and 26, 1995, Dr. Harley V. Stock performed what he referred to as the “mandatory fitness for duty examination.” In Dr. Stock’s evaluation, dated May 3, 1995,2 he stated, among other things, the following:
[Mr. Belford] shows no impairment in relationship to reality. . . . there was no indication of any underlying mood
disorder. . . . There is no indication of any underlying thought disorder. . . .
In summary this examiner has had the opportunity to review a significant amount of collateral information regarding
Mr. Belford’s employment with the Palm Beach School Police Department. It appears that he has had fluctuating reviews, particularly in areas as it relates [sic] to interpersonal interactions. When confronted with documentation, Mr. Belford always has an “excuse”. He essentially feels that most of the problems that he is currently facing are a result of racial discrimination. He takes absolutely no responsibility for his own behavior. He is overly suspicious about other people’s motives towards him. He denies any type of provocative physical action towards the students or others. He believes that he is “misunderstood”.
Psychological testing reveals him to be a
skeptical, suspicious, over-controlled individual who may have the propensity to lose his “temper” at times when provoked. He, however, will have no insight into this.
Instead, he would rather shift the blame, and responsibility to others for any problems that he finds himself in. I find some of
Mr. Belford’s explanations for his behavior, as contained in the allegations, incredible.
Based on psychological testing, Dr. Stock made the following recommendations in his evaluation:
Because of his current psychologic [sic] functioning, his behavior at this time cannot be predicted in terms of his interactions with students and faculty members. He obviously harbors a great deal of hostility towards others, but does not either acknowledge, or recognize it. This can lead to episodes where he may become physically assaultive at the most, or at the very least, verbally aggressive in a way that is inappropriate in a school environment. I would therefore recommend that he is temporarily Unfit For Duty and that he needs mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling.
Mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling means
that the School Board should be appraised [sic] of his keeping scheduled counseling appointments, and that within a reasonable time, he be re-evaluated to ascertain whether he is making any progress in psychotherapy and gaining any insight into how to both understand his behavior and to modulate his impulses. During the time of treatment, I would recommend that he not engage in any functions that would place him in the role of having any type of “police authority”. This would include coming into contact with students and administrators. However, his psychologic [sic] condition does not render him totally incapable of employment. A “light duty” position would be appropriate in which he can carry on selected roles as described by the School Board while receiving treatment. After treatment is completed, within a reasonable time, Mr. Belford should then be re-evaluated to see if indeed treatment has had any effect on him. At that juncture, a further determination can be made about his work placement.
In a meeting held on May 17, 1995, the results of Dr. Stock’s evaluation were discussed with Mr. Belford who was accompanied by his PBA counsel. Mr. Belford was advised that Dr. Stock considered him to be temporarily unfit for duty.
In May 1995, in accordance with Dr. Stock’s recommendations, Mr. Belford was removed from duty. He was assigned light duty in the risk management department while he underwent counseling.
Mr. Belford’s psychological counseling sessions were conducted by MCC Behavioral Care. His counseling sessions began on May 18, 1995.
The School Board coordinated Mr. Belford’s appointments with MCC Behavioral Care and Dr. Stock. Melinda Wong was the coordinator for the School Board.
During his last counseling session with MCC Behavioral Care held on August 4, 1995, Mr. Belford and his counselor agreed that he need not return to MCC Behavioral Care for any more counseling sessions. However, the counselor did not indicate to Mr. Belford whether he should or was required to return to
Dr. Stock for a final evaluation.
In August 1995, a representative from Ms. Wong’s office informed Mr. Belford that his final evaluation with Dr. Stock would be conducted on August 29, 1995.
Mr. Belford attended the session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995. Mr. Belford departed the session with the understanding that the session was for his final evaluation and that Dr. Stock would submit his final report to the School Board within the next week.
However, no final determination was made by Dr. Stock regarding Mr. Belford’s fitness for duty. Dr. Stock had concerns regarding the appropriateness of the counseling provided to
Mr. Belford by MCC Behavioral Care.
During the month of September 1995 and subsequent months, Mr. Belford periodically inquired of Ms. Wong about the status of Dr. Stock's final determination. Each time, she informed him that no determination had been made by Dr. Stock. Mr. Belford was clearly frustrated.
On October 5, 1995, Mr. Belford filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, hereinafter EEOC, against the School Board.
Finally, Dr. Stock's office contacted Ms. Wong and informed her that Dr. Stock needed to have one more session with Mr. Belford in order to make a final evaluation. Ms. Wong arranged for the session to be conducted on January 3, 1996, after Mr. Belford's Christmas vacation.
On Friday, December 15, 1995, at approximately
2:40 p.m., Ms. Wong went to Mr. Belford’s workplace which was in the immediate vicinity of her workplace. She advised Mr. Belford that he needed to attend a final session with Dr. Stock on January 3, 1996, in order for Dr. Stock to prepare the final evaluation. Believing that he had attended his final session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995, and that Ms. Wong was not aware of the final session, Mr. Belford informed Ms. Wong that he
had already completed his final session and requested that she check her records. Mr. Belford was visibly tense and upset.
Ms. Wong was surprised by Mr. Belford's reaction. She interpreted Mr. Belford's conduct as refusing to attend his last session with Dr. Stock for a final evaluation. Ms. Wong departed Mr. Belford’s workplace and immediately contacted Chief Kelly.
Seeking advice, Chief Kelly telephoned Louis Haddad, the School Board’s Coordinator of Employee Relations. Mr. Haddad advised Chief Kelly to immediately contact Mr. Belford and to arrange a meeting with Mr. Belford that afternoon in Mr. Haddad's office, which was in the same building. Attending the meeting would be Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, Ms. Wong, and Mr. Haddad.
Chief Kelly telephoned Mr. Belford and informed Mr. Belford that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Haddad's
office. Mr. Belford informed Chief Kelly that he was getting-off work in approximately 10 minutes at 3:00 p.m.. At that time, Chief Kelly made it clear that he was giving Mr. Belford a direct order to attend the meeting. Mr. Belford advised Chief Kelly that he wanted his counsel present at the meeting. Chief Kelly did not respond to Mr. Belford's request, but asked him if he was refusing to attend the meeting, thereby disobeying a direct order. Immediately, Mr. Belford became nervous and afraid and felt queasy in the stomach. He inquired as to the location of the meeting. Chief Kelly informed him where the meeting was being held, and they both terminated the telephone conversation.
Mr. Belford was on duty when Chief Kelly gave him the direct order to attend the meeting.
Mr. Belford did not refuse to attend the meeting. He intended to attend the meeting. When the telephone conversation ended, Chief Kelly had a reasonable expectation that Mr. Belford would obey the direct order and attend the meeting being held that afternoon.
Shortly after the telephone conversation with Chief Kelly, Mr. Belford began recalling the events leading up to the telephone conversation, and his nervousness and queasy feeling intensified. Mr. Belford became ill and was unable to attend the meeting. He departed from his workplace without notifying anyone of his sudden illness3 and without attending the meeting.
While waiting for Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, not being aware that Mr. Belford had departed his workplace, telephoned Mr. Belford's PBA counsel and informed him of the meeting and briefly of the underlying circumstances. The PBA counsel considered the meeting appropriate and advised Chief Kelly that he would be available by telephone when Mr. Belford arrived.
Immediately after leaving his office, Mr. Belford contacted his new counsel. At approximately 3:25 p.m., a representative from the office of Mr. Belford's new counsel telephoned Chief Kelly.
The representative of Mr. Belford's new counsel indicated to Chief Kelly that Mr. Belford would not be attending
the meeting due to his sudden illness. Chief Kelly informed the representative that Mr. Belford had disobeyed a direct order and that, among other things, Mr. Belford was relieved of duty and would be recommended for termination due to insubordination.
Prior to this telephone call, Chief Kelly had no knowledge that anyone other than the PBA counsel was representing Mr. Belford. Unbeknownst to the PBA counsel and Chief Kelly,
Mr. Belford had decided prior to December 15, 1995, that he no longer wanted the PBA counsel's representation and that he wanted new counsel.
On Monday, December 18, 1995, the next business day, Chief Kelly received written notification from Mr. Belford's new counsel regarding the reason for Mr. Belford's failure to attend the meeting.
It is undisputed that there is no right to consult an attorney before obeying a direct order of a superior officer. Furthermore, it is undisputed that obeying a direct order from a superior officer is a critical and important aspect of the responsibilities of a police officer.
On December 20, 1995, Chief Kelly recommended that Mr. Belford be terminated from employment with the School Board for insubordination.
Mr. Belford never had a session with Dr. Stock subsequent to August 29, 1995. It was reasonable for Mr. Belford
to presume that, since he was being recommended for termination, he was not expected to attend any future session with Dr. Stock.
Dr. Stock never made a final determination as to whether Mr. Belford was fit to return to duty.
On January 9, 1996, a pre-termination meeting was held with Mr. Belford at which he was represented by counsel. At the meeting, Mr. Belford was notified that he was being terminated for gross insubordination.
By letter dated January 26, 1996, the School Board notified Mr. Belford that he was being suspended without pay and that he was being recommended for termination due to gross insubordination.
On February 23, 1996, the School Board responded to Mr. Belford's charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC.
The School Police for the School Board has a written policy regarding separation from employment. The policy defines gross insubordination in section "IV. C. Suspension/Termination" as "a willful disregard or constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority." Furthermore, section "IV. D." provides that "Employees included in a bargaining unit are subject to suspension/dismissal provisions of the collective bargaining agreement."
The School Board and the Palm Beach County PBA have a collective bargaining agreement, hereinafter CBA. Article 7 of
the CBA, entitled "Police Officers Bill of Rights," provides in pertinent part as follows:
7.1 All law enforcement officers employed by the School Board shall have the following rights and privileges:
Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions:
* * *
I. At the request of any law enforcement officer under investigation, he/she shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his/her choice who shall be present at all times during such interrogation when the interrogation relates to the officer's continued fitness for law enforcement service.
* * *
5. No law enforcement officer shall be discharged, disciplined, demoted, or denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment, or otherwise be discriminated against in regard to his/her employment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his/her exercise of the rights granted by this part.
Article 29 of the CBA, entitled "Progressive Discipline," provides in pertinent part as follows:
This Section covers actions involving oral or written warnings, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice.
Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action.
* * *
8. The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause.
Where just cause warrants such action(s), any employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the Chief of Police to the Superintendent of Schools.
Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows:
Verbal warning (written notation).
Written warning.
Written reprimand filed in Personnel.
Suspension with or without pay.
Dismissal.
It is inferred and a finding is made that Mr. Belford is a member of the Palm Beach County PBA and is, therefore, subject to the collective bargaining agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto.
Pursuant to the School Board's written policy,
Mr. Belford's suspension/dismissal is subject to the collective bargaining agreement, which provides for dismissal by the School Board for a "flagrant violation" without progressive discipline.
This Administrative Law Judge is persuaded that gross insubordination is a flagrant violation.
Gross insubordination is defined by the School Board's policy statement as "a willful disregard or constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority."
Petitioner has demonstrated that Ms. Wong's directive to Mr. Belford to attend a final session with Dr. Stock for a final evaluation on January 3, 1996, was reasonable. Further, Petitioner has demonstrated that the directive was given by and with proper authority, as Ms. Wong was given the responsibility of coordinating Mr. Belford's counseling sessions with MCC Behavioral Care and appointments with Dr. Stock.
However, Mr. Belford has demonstrated that, under the attendant circumstances, it was reasonable for him to question whether another session was required with Dr. Stock who, by all indications prior to December 15, 1995, had conducted his final evaluation session with Mr. Belford on August 29, 1995. The evidence shows that Mr. Belford and the School Board were involuntarily caught in the controversy between Dr. Stock and MCC Behavioral Care regarding the appropriate counseling for
Mr. Belford. As a result of the controversy, Dr. Stock's final determination as to Mr. Belford's fitness for duty was delayed. Moreover, Dr. Stock decided that another session with Mr. Belford was necessary before a fitness for duty determination could be
made, which was contrary to what Mr. Belford had been lead to believe.
Petitioner has demonstrated that Chief Kelly gave
Mr. Belford a direct order to attend the meeting on December 15, 1995. Petitioner has further demonstrated that the direct order was reasonable and given by and with proper authority.
Additionally, even though Chief Kelly had given
Mr. Belford a direct order to attend the meeting, Chief Kelly addressed immediately Mr. Belford's concern regarding representation by counsel at the meeting. Chief Kelly telephoned the PBA counsel and had the counsel available by telephone for the meeting. However, Chief Kelly's compliance with
Mr. Belford's request was not communicated to Mr. Belford; therefore, Mr. Belford was not aware that counsel would be available at the meeting.
Gross insubordination, according to its definition, may arise from a single occurrence ("willful disregard . . . to obey a direct order”) or from multiple occurrences ("constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order").
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate gross insubordination arising from multiple occurrences, i.e., "constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order."
As to gross insubordination arising from a single occurrence, i.e., "willful disregard . . . to obey a direct
order," taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Belford's conduct of not attending the meeting of
December 15, 1995, rose to the level of gross insubordination. Willful is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, as follows:
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary.
* * *
Willful is a word of many meanings, its construction often influenced by its context. (citation omitted)
* * *
A willful act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. . . .
Mr. Belford did not refuse to participate in the session with Dr. Stock for a final evaluation to be conducted on January 3, 1996. Mr. Belford questioned the need for another session based on a reasonable belief that he had his last session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995, from which a final evaluation would be submitted. Further, the controversy between Dr. Stock and MCC Behavioral Care compounded the strained relationship between the School Board and Mr. Belford.
Moreover, Mr. Belford intended to attend the meeting of December 15, 1995, even after requesting the presence of counsel.
Mr. Belford has shown that he was willing to do whatever was required of him to keep his job even if he believed that the required action was not appropriate. His illness, accompanied with fear, subsequent to the telephone conversation with Chief Kelly caused Mr. Belford to not attend the meeting. His fear was reasonable taking into consideration the conversation that he had with Ms. Wong, the direct order that Chief Kelly had given him after the conversation with Ms. Wong, and the location of the meeting which was in the office of the School Board's Coordinator of Employee Relations and Services. After departing his workplace, Mr. Belford sought assistance and advice from his new counsel who less than one-half hour later contacted Chief Kelly to explain the failure by Mr. Belford to attend the meeting.
Having examined the entire circumstances of this case, Mr. Belford's failure, before departing his workplace, to contact and advise Chief Kelly of his illness and of his inability to attend the meeting due to his illness has little impact on the determination of the issue in this case.
The collective bargaining agreement provides further that suspension and dismissal shall be for just cause. As the School Board has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Belford committed gross insubordination, just cause has not been shown for the suspension and dismissal of Mr. Belford on the ground of gross insubordination.
Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to support
Mr. Belford's contention that the School Board's action was retaliation for his having filed a discrimination claim against the School Board with the EEOC.
No determination is made as to whether Mr. Belford is fit to return to duty, as the issue was not before this Administrative Law Judge
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order revoking the suspension and dismissal and reinstating Steven E. Belford under terms and conditions as are appropriate.
DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ERROL H. POWELL
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 13th day of October, 1997.
ENDNOTES
1/ The School Board called Mr. Belford to testify in its case- in-chief and called one rebuttal witness.
2/ Dr. Stock’s written evaluation was dictated but not signed by him.
3/ Mr. Belford departed after his work hours.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire
One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1504
250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Jacob A. Rose, Esquire Victor B. Gent, J.D. The Rose Law Firm, P.A.
215 Fifth Street, Suite 305 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Dr. Bernard Shulman, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board
3340 Forest Hill Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Oct. 13, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 11/06-07/96 & 04/01/97. |
| Jul. 25, 1997 | Letter to V. Gent from L. Naeher (& enclosed certified copy of the hearing transcript) received. |
| Jul. 21, 1997 | (4 Volumes, Originals) Transcript received. |
| Jul. 07, 1997 | (4 Volumes, Certified Copies) Transcript received. |
| Jun. 24, 1997 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jun. 23, 1997 | (From G. Torcivia) Closing Argument received. |
| Jun. 20, 1997 | (From G. Torcivia) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law received. |
| Jun. 04, 1997 | Order Granting Extension of Time sent out. (PRO`s due by 6/12/97) |
| May 29, 1997 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile) received. |
| May 20, 1997 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Apr. 21, 1997 | (Volume III) Transcript of Proceedings received. |
| Mar. 13, 1997 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 1, 1997; 3:45 p.m.; West Palm Beach) |
| Feb. 25, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Availability (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | Order Requiring Response sent out. (parties to file mutually agreeable hearing dates within 10 days) |
| Feb. 04, 1997 | (Petitioner) Revised Notice of Availability (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jan. 29, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Availability (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jan. 06, 1997 | Order sent out. (re: rebuttal witness) |
| Nov. 26, 1996 | Respondent`s Memorandum of Law In Support of Permitting Jacob A. Roseto Testify as a Fact Witness (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Nov. 25, 1996 | Petitioner`s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Calling Attorney Jacob Rose as a Rebuttal Witness received. |
| Nov. 06, 1996 | CASE STATUS DOCKETED: Hearing Partially Held, continued to date not certain. |
| Nov. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Amended Joint Prehearing Statement (filed via facsimile)received. |
| Nov. 05, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Representation By Non-Attorney (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Nov. 05, 1996 | Joint Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Nov. 04, 1996 | Order Rescheduling Time for Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9:30am; 11/6/96) |
| Oct. 28, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion for Rescheduling of Hearing received. |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | Petitioner`s Response to Order Granting Continuance received. |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing reset for Nov. 6-7, 1996; 9:00am; West Palm Beach) |
| Aug. 23, 1996 | Respondent`s Response to Order Granting Continuance and Requiring Response; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Aug. 09, 1996 | (Respondent) Consented Motion to Extend Time for Filing Response to Hearing Officer`s Order of July 16, 1996 (filed via facsimile) received. |
| Jul. 30, 1996 | (Lisa A. Dibble) Notice of Appearance received. |
| Jul. 16, 1996 | Order Granting Continuance and Requiring Response sent out. (hearing cancelled; parties to file status report by 8/9/96) |
| Jul. 10, 1996 | Letter to CA from Victor B. Gent (RE: unavailable dates for hearing) received. |
| Jun. 25, 1996 | Order Granting Continuance and Amended Notice sent out. (Hearing rescheduled for July 31 & Aug. 1, 1996; 9:00am; West Palm Beach) |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Continue Hearing Before Hearing Officer received. |
| Jun. 14, 1996 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| May 08, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (Hearing set for July 11-12, 1996; 9:00am; West Palm Beach) |
| Apr. 30, 1996 | Joint Response to Initial Order received. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | (From J. Rose) Notice of Appearance received. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Agency referral letter; Request for Hearing, letter form received. |
| Apr. 03, 1996 | Petition for Dismissal, (Exhibits); Agency Action Letter; received. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 13, 1997 | Recommended Order | Respondent did not commit gross insubordination, as defined by Petitioner's written policy, for refusal to obey a direct order. Reinstatement under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. |
