STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JENNIFER N. SULLIVAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 06-2402
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on September 8, 2006, by video teleconference between sites in Tampa and Tallahassee, Florida, before R. Bruce McKibben, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: No appearance
For Respondent: Matthew M. Deleo, Esquire
Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was overpaid certain wages by the Respondent, and, if so, whether repayment is warranted.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By means of a letter dated June 26, 2006, Respondent Department of Corrections (Department) notified Petitioner that an audit of her attendance, leave, and pay records revealed an overpayment of $111.13 and requested immediate repayment.
Petitioner responded, challenging the total amount of the overpayment and asking the Department's basis for seeking repayment. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing, which was duly noticed and scheduled for video teleconferencing at sites in Tallahassee and Tampa.
At the final hearing held on September 8, 2006, Petitioner did not appear. The Department presented the testimony of one witness, Angie Cynkar, a human resource analyst with the Department. The Department also offered 12 exhibits, all of which were received in evidence.
No transcript of the final hearing was ordered, and the parties did not request an opportunity to submit proposed recommended orders.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner was an employee of the Department until December 13, 2005. She was employed as a corrections officer and, as such, was eligible for criminal justice incentive pay.
Criminal justice incentive pay is paid separately and apart from regular salary payments through a separate payment
system used by the Department. A person whose employment with the Department is terminated would not be terminated automatically from the incentive pay payment system.
Upon her termination from employment with the Department, Petitioner continued to receive incentive pay by direct deposit to her bank account. This occurred on five occasions following her termination. The total amount of the overpayments to Petitioner after taxes was $111.13.
The Department asked Petitioner to return the money that had been overpaid, but Petitioner did not comply with the request. In her request for a formal hearing, Petitioner alleged some error in the amount of overpayments being claimed, but no evidence was presented to support that allegation at the final hearing.
The Department presented evidence as to each of the incentive pay payments to Petitioner following her termination from employment. Respondent averred that all taxes withheld from the incentive payments would be credited to Petitioner upon return of the overpayment amount.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2006).
The Department is authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69I-22.003(7) to seek return of any improper payments made to state employees by direct deposit through an electronic funds transfer.
Further, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69I-21.004 sets forth the process for recovery of non-salary sums due the State from employees. The Department has satisfied the recovery process in this matter.
The Department met its burden of proof that overpayments had been made to Petitioner and that repayment was
due and owing.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Corrections requiring repayment of the incentive payments made to Petitioner in the sum of $111.13.
DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2006.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Jennifer Sullivan 38618 Kapok Avenue
Zephyrhills, Florida 33542
Matthew M. Deleo, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
James R. McDonough, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Rosa Carson, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563
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 |
---|---|
Nov. 01, 2006 | Final Order filed. |
Oct. 09, 2006 | Recommended Order (hearing held September 8, 2006). CASE CLOSED. |
Oct. 09, 2006 | Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency. |
Sep. 08, 2006 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
Sep. 01, 2006 | Witness List of Respondent; Respondent Exhibit List and Proposed Hearing Exhibits filed (hearing exhibits not available for viewing). |
Aug. 21, 2006 | Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Deleo). |
Jul. 28, 2006 | Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 8, 2006; 9:30 a.m.; Tampa and Tallahassee, FL). |
Jul. 28, 2006 | Department of Corrections` Response to Initial Order filed. |
Jul. 24, 2006 | In Response to the Initial Order filed. |
Jul. 10, 2006 | Notice of Overpayments filed. |
Jul. 10, 2006 | Request for Administrative Hearing filed. |
Jul. 10, 2006 | Agency referral filed. |
Jul. 10, 2006 | Initial Order. |
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
Nov. 01, 2006 | Agency Final Order | |
Oct. 09, 2006 | Recommended Order | Petitioner is to repay overpayments to Respondent. |