The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant for employment in a position with the Department of Education, filed a petition seeking a formal hearing to contest the Department's hiring of another applicant. The primary issues in this case are: Is an unsuccessful applicant for employment entitled to a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge the agency's hiring decision? If so, does the Petitioner in this case have standing to bring such a challenge? If the Petitioner has standing, did the agency's hiring decision depart from the requirements of law? All parties presented evidence at the hearing and following the hearing all parties were afforded an opportunity to file proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner and the Intervenor filed post-hearing briefs and the Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All of the parties' post- hearing submissions have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact proposed by the parties are addressed in the attached Appendix.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Intervenor, Joann Carrin, was employed by the Commissioner of Education as her Executive Assistant from February 11, 1987, until she was moved temporarily to the position she currently holds as a Program Specialist III with the Division of Public Schools. Ms. Carrin was temporarily assigned to Position No. 01681 prior to the official advertisement of that position. Ms. Carrin has significant experience in the criminal justice system and has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from Florida State University. The selection of Ms. Carrin was made on the basis of the agency's perceptions about her qualifications for the job and not on the basis of any influence or other improper motive. Ms. Carrin timely filed her application for Position No. 01681, was interviewed by Larry Hutcheson, and was selected to fill that position permanently. Position No. 01681, Program Specialist III with the Division of Public Schools, Bureau of Program Support Services, Office of Risk Assessment Information System, required significant experience in the criminal justice system because it involved the coordination of activities of the RAIS Coordinating Council (Risk Assessment Information System) which dealt with the interface between educational agencies and the criminal justice system. The "minimum qualifications" listed in the announcement for Position No. 01681 Program Specialist III, are minimum qualifications for all Program Specialist III positions in the Department of Education. Such "boiler plate" minimum qualifications are often substituted for by other experience and/or education of an applicant which are more specific to the position being advertised. Position No. 01681 was properly advertised in accordance with the normal administrative procedures for such an advertisement. All of the employment applications received for the subject position were first reviewed by Jeanne Messer to see whether the minimum qualifications listed on the Position Vacancy dated November 2, 1987, were met by the applicants. Upon initial review, Ms. Carrin's application indicated that she did not qualify for the position based on the "minimum qualifications." Therefore, Ms. Messer wrote "not qualified" on the job application of Ms. Carrin. All employment applications received for the subject position were then transferred to Larry Hutcheson for his review and selection of persons whom he wished to interview for the position. Applicants who did not meet the minimum qualifications as listed in the Position Vacancy can still be hired for the job in question if they have other experience and/or education which may be substituted for the experience and education listed in the minimum qualifications section of the employment announcement. The Department of Education has the authority to substitute other experience and education for the minimum qualifications indicated on a Program Specialist III job announcement. Ms. Carrin was selected to fill the subject position pursuant to that authority. When the applicant chosen to fill a position does not meet the published "minimum qualifications," the individual making the choice must justify the proposed choice. Such a justification was properly completed by Mr. Hutcheson to justify the selection of Ms. Carrin. The Department of Administration reviews substitutions of experience and education for compliance with established standards. Ms. Cynthia McDaniel is the individual in charge of the section of the Department of Administration that conducts such reviews. The substitution of Ms. Carrin's education and experience for the minimum qualifications listed in the job description for Position No. 01681 were reviewed by Cynthia McDaniel's staff and found to be in accordance with the substitution procedures established by the Department of Administration. The Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was one of numerous applicants for employment in Position No. 01681. He submitted a timely application which was preliminarily evaluated as meeting the minimum qualifications listed in the announcement for Position No. 01681. There is no evidence in the record as to how the qualifications of Mr. Sondel compare to the qualifications of Ms. Carrin or to the qualifications of any of the other many applicants. Specifically there is no evidence in the record which would support a finding that Mr. Sondel was the best qualified candidate for Position No. 01681.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Education issue a final order in this case dismissing the petition and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3033 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The Petitioner's Brief does not contain any portion designated as proposed findings of fact, but at pages thirteen through twenty-one, under the caption "Hearing testimony and evidentiary revelations," the Petitioner does purport to address some of the factual issues in this case. Accordingly, those pages of the Petitioner's Brief have been treated as the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, and, to the extent possible, are specifically addressed below. (Specific attention to some of the factual material in the above-described portion of the Petitioner's Brief is virtually impossible as a result of factual material being inextricably intertwined with argument.) Page 13: The quoted material in the top paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. The first sentence in the second paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. The remainder of this page is rejected as constituting primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Page 14: The material on this page is rejected as constituting primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Page 15: All of the material on this page is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Page 16: All of the material on this page is rejected as an inextricably intertwined combination of argument and subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, most of the factual assertions on this page constitute inferences not warranted by the evidence. Page 17: All of the material on this page is rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Page 18: All of the material on this page is rejected as constituting argument or a combination of argument and subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some of the assertions on this page constitute inferences not warranted by the evidence. Page 19: First three paragraphs are rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last paragraph is accepted in substance, with the omission of some subordinate and unnecessary details. Page 20: All of the material on this page is rejected as constituting either argument or proposed findings that are not supported by the evidence. Page 21: All of the material on this page is rejected as constituting primarily argument and inferences which are not warranted by the evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The findings of fact in this recommended order incorporate the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Respondent with the exception of Paragraph 17 of the Respondent's proposed findings. Paragraph 17 is rejected because the first sentence is repetitious or cumulative and the second sentence constitutes argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Intervenor: The brief submitted on behalf of the Intervenor consists primarily of legal arguments. The Intervenor's brief does not contain any proposed findings of fact. (Although there are some references to the facts in the context of the legal arguments, there is nothing in the Intervenor's brief which purports to be or which appears to be proposed findings of fact.) COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. D. Paul Sondel, pro se 1625 Centerville Road, TH22 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4721 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for his answers to certain examination questions on the State Officer Certification Examination ("SOCE") administered November 11, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility for administering officer certification examinations and for establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). The SOCE is a multiple-choice examination, and there are four answer choices for each question. Mr. Page was a certified police officer in New Jersey for approximately three and one-half years before moving to Florida. Pursuant to Section 943.13(9), Florida Statutes (2004), Mr. Page was not required to attend a full six-months' basic recruit training program because of his background in law enforcement. Mr. Page did, however, attend a two-week, 80-hour state-certified training program in preparation for taking the SOCE, and he was provided a loose-leaf notebook containing written course materials. The course materials reflect the Commission's curriculum, and these materials are provided to the training institution, which is responsible for copying the materials and providing them to the students. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 47 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 47 describes the statutory elements of a crime, and the examination candidate must choose the answer that identifies the crime fitting the statutory elements set forth in the body of the question. Question 47 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 55 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 55 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 55 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately difficult question; the correct answer was included among the answer choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 63 is "D"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 63 describes the actions of a person, and the answer choices set forth conclusions a law enforcement officer could draw from these actions. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate conclusion. Question 63 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a difficult question3; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 159 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 159 requires the examination candidate to fill in the blank in the body of the question. The examination candidate must choose the answer that accurately completes the statement contained in the body of the question. Question 159 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 195 is "A"; Mr. Page chose answer "B." Question 195 describes an activity in which a law enforcement officer might engage, and the examination candidate is asked to choose the answer that best describes the consequences of the officer's engaging in such an activity. Question 195 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 248 is "B"; Mr. Page chose answer "C." Question 248 describes a scenario, and the answer choices set forth various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the answer describing the appropriate action. Question 248 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as an easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. According to the Commission, the correct answer to question 251 is "C"; Mr. Page chose answer "A." Question 251 describes a scenario, and the answer choices provide various actions a law enforcement officer could take under the circumstances described. The examination candidate is asked to choose the appropriate action. Question 251 is clear and unambiguous; the question is statistically valid and is classified as a moderately easy question; the correct answer was included among the choices provided; and the correct answer is included in the Commission's curriculum and in the materials provided by the Commission to the various training institutions. Mr. Page failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. The specific curriculum materials referred to by the Commission as supporting what it deemed to be the correct answers to questions numbered 47, 63, 159, and 195, were not included in the loose-leaf notebook provided to Mr. Page as part of the 80-hour training program in which he participated prior to taking the SOCE.4 These omissions are not sufficient of themselves, however, to justify giving Mr. Page credit for his answers to these four questions. Because Mr. Page failed to establish either that the questions were ambiguous or that the answers he gave on the examination questions were correct, he is not entitled to credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order dismissing the challenge of Jason R. Page to the scoring of his answers on the SOCE administered on November 11, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 28th day of June, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Statewide Nominating Commission for Judges of Compensation Claims’ “Guidelines of Operation of the Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission” constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(2), Florida Statutes, in violation of section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes. Filed January 10, 2018 4:52 PM Division of Administrative Hearings
Findings Of Fact 1. Judges of Compensation Claims are appointed by the Governor and charged with conducting administrative proceedings on petitions for benefits filed under Florida’s “Workers’ Compensation Law,” Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See § 440.45(2) (a) & (c), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 600Q-6.105. These Judges are appointed for four-year terms, with the Governor having the discretion —- as qualified below - to reappoint a sitting Judge for a subsequent term. § 440.45(2) (c), Fla. Stat. The statute does not limit the number of times the Governor may reappoint a Judge of Compensation Claims, and does not prohibit the Governor from appointing a qualified person to serve non-consecutive terms as a Judge. 2. The Statewide Nominating Commission for Judges of Compensation Claims (“Commission”) is charged with making a threshold eligibility determination as part of the reappointment process. Prior to the expiration of a judge’s term of office, the statewide nominating commission shall review the judge's conduct and determine whether the judge’s performance is satisfactory. Effective July 1, 2002, in determining whether a judge’s performance is satisfactory, the commission shall consider the extent to which the judge has met the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the requirements of ss.440.25(1) and (4) (a)-(e), 440.34(2), and 440.442. If the judge’s performance is deemed satisfactory, the commission shall report its finding to the Governor no later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the judge’s term of office. The Governor shall review the commission’s report and may reappoint the judge for an additional 4-year term. If the Governor does not reappoint the judge, the Governor shall inform the commission. The judge shall remain in office until the Governor has appointed a successor judge in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (ob). If a vacancy occurs during a judge’s unexpired term, the statewide nominating commission does not find the judge’s performance is satisfactory, or the Governor does not reappoint the judge, the Governor shall appoint a successor judge for a term of 4 years in accordance with paragraph (b). § 440.45(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Without a reported determination of “satisfactory” from the Commission, the Governor is required to appoint a successor Judge. In such an instance, the Governor has no legal authority to reappoint the incumbent. 3. Other than reporting on whether a sitting Judge’s performance has been satisfactory, the Commission is not statutorily authorized to make a recommendation on reappointment. 4. The Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims (“Office”) is a unit within the Department of Management Services comprised of all Judges of Compensation Claims and headed by a Deputy Judge of Compensation Claims. § 440.45(1) (a), Fla. Stat. The Office has the duty to adopt rules, including those for the Commission to follow in reviewing the performance of incumbent Judges.} The Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims shall adopt rules to carry out the purposes of this section. Such rules must include procedural rules applicable to workers’ compensation claim resolution, including rules requiring electronic filing and service where deemed appropriate by the Deputy Chief Judge, and uniform criteria for measuring the performance of the office, including, but not limited to, the number of cases assigned and resolved, the age of pending and resolved cases, timeliness of decisions, extraordinary fee awards, and other data necessary for the judicial nominating commission to review the performance of judges as required in paragraph (2) ({c). [emphasis added] § 440.45 (4), Fla. Stat. This statutory mandate was passed sixteen (16) years ago and has remained essentially unchanged since. See Ch. 2001-91, § 26, Laws of Fla. (2001) .? 5. Pursuant to this mandate, the Office adopted the “Rules of Procedure for Workers’ Compensation Adjudications,” Chapter 600-6, Florida Administrative Code, which became effective February 23, 2003. The Chapter contains individual rules that address initial pleadings, discovery, mediation, hearings, and other procedural matters. 6. None of the rules in this Chapter contain uniform criteria for measuring performance. None of the rules cite section 440.45(2) (c), Florida Statutes, as a “law implemented.” There are no rules in this Chapter or adopted elsewhere for the Commission to follow in determining whether an incumbent Judge’s performance has been satisfactory and reporting this determination to the Governor. 7. In the absence of rules, the Commission follows a document titled “Guidelines of Operation of the Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission” (“Guidelines”) in “review[ing] the applications of Judges of Compensation Claims who seek reappointment.” Guidelines, § I.3 The Guidelines require applicants to complete an application form by a specified deadline, establish procedures for public comment, and allow the Commission to pose “questions deemed pertinent to each applicant’s fitness and qualifications to hold the judicial office.” Id., §§ I & IV. Section V of the Guidelines, titled “Standards and Qualifications; Criteria,” provides that [n]o nominee shall be recommended to the Governor for appointment unless the Commission finds that the nominee meets all constitutional and statutory requirements and is fit for appointment after full and careful consideration which consideration may include, but [is] not necessarily limited to, the following criteria: (a) Personal attributes (1) Personal integrity (2) Standing in community (3) Sobriety (4) Moral conduct (5) Ethics (6) Commitment to equal justice under law (b} Competence and experience (1) General health, mental and physical (2) Intelligence (3) Knowledge of law (4) Professional Reputation (5) Knowledge of and experience in the court involved (c) Judicial capabilities (1) Patience (2) Decisiveness (3) Impartiality (4) Courtesy (5) Civility (6) Industry and promptness (7) Administrative ability (8) Possible reaction to judicial power (9) Temperament (10) Independence 8. The Guidelines do not contain uniform criteria or a procedure for the Commission to report whether a judge’s performance has been satisfactory. Rather, the Guidelines direct the Commission to take the following action at the conclusion of the review process: When considering a Judge for reappointment, by majority vote, the Commission shall vote upon whether to recommend each particular judge for reappointment. The names of each judge considered by the Commission shall be certified to the Governor in writing, which shall include only the judge’s name and whether recommended or not. 9. The Guidelines bear an effective date of November 22, 2013, and provide that they “may be amended by majority vote of the Nominating Commission” and “may be readopted periodically at the discretion of the Commission members.” Id., § XII. The Guidelines contain no mention of the rulemaking process under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. 10. The Guidelines have not been adopted by the Office or the Commission as a rule pursuant to the rulemaking procedures in section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Commission has no rulemaking authority. See Fla. Att’y Gen. Op. 92-72 (1992). 11. Petitioner Gerardo Castiello is a resident of Dade County, Florida. Petitioner was appointed as a Judge of Compensation Claims for the Miami District of the State of Florida, Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, at some point prior to 2013. In November 2016, Petitioner was serving as a Judge and seeking reappointment for another four-year term. 12. On November 1, 2016, the Commission conducted a hearing to consider Petitioner’s application for reappointment. The Commission did not vote or otherwise make a determination of whether Petitioner’s performance was satisfactory. Instead, the Commission applied the Guidelines in reaching its decision. This decision is memorialized in a letter sent by the Commission to the Governor on November 14, 2016, which contains the following statement regarding Petitioner: “The Commission did not nominate Hon. Gerardo Castiello (MIA) for reappointment.” 13. Petitioner commenced this proceeding on January 20, 2017, when, by and through counsel, he filed a Petition Challenging Agency Statements Defined as Undaopted Rules with the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). The Petition alleges that the Guidelines meet the definition of “rules,”4 have not been adopted as rules as required by statute,® and have been relied upon by the Commission as “the basis of its denial and rejection of the Petitioner’s reappointment application.” Petition { 38. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing, a determination that the Guidelines are unadopted rules, and related relief. Id. @ 42. 14. DOAH did not assign an administrative law judge to preside over this proceeding within ten days after receipt of the petition as required by section 120.56(1) (c), Florida Statutes. On February 22, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Administrative Law Judge, and Notice of Objection to Consideration by Administration Commission. 15. Petitioner then filed petitions with the First and Third District Courts of Appeal beginning in February 2017 to address this issue and related matters. Among other relief, these petitions sought to compel DOAH to appoint an administrative law judge. The Commission objected to this relief, in part, on the basis that “DOAH is the real party in interest,” and this matter has “been referred to the Administration Commission for appointment of an attorney to hear the case pursuant to § 120.80(1), Fla. Stat.” Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Petition, Third DCA Case No. 3D17-0341 (March 8, 2017). 16. The Third District Court of Appeals ultimately denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, and/or alternative writs and remedies. Order, Third DCA Case No. 3D17-0341 (March 29, 2017). The Court subsequently denied Petitioner’s motion for written opinion, clarification, rehearing, certification, and/or rehearing en banc. Order, Third DCA Case No. 3D17-0341 (May 3, 2017). 17. Approximately four months later, without any action by the Administration Commission, undersigned was designated by DOAH Chief Judge Cohen as the “hearing officer to conduct the hearing” in this matter under the authority of section 120.65(5), Florida Statutes. Order of Assignment at 1 (September 18, 2017). That section allows DOAH to assign a full-time state employee as a hearing officer “[i]f the division cannot furnish a division administrative law judge promptly in response to an agency request.” § 120.56(5), Fla. Stat.® 18. Based on the assignment of undersigned, the First District Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See Castiello v. Florida Div. of Admin. Hearings, 229 So. 3d 861 (Fla. lst DCA 2017), reh'g denied (Nov. 8, 2017). 19. After filing the petition that commenced this proceeding and while the petitions for various writs were pending before the District Courts of Appeal, Petitioner propounded discovery to Respondent. On February 13, 2017, Petitioner served on Respondent and filed with DOAH a request for admissions. Respondent did not timely answer or object to this request. 20. On September 20, 2017, after undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer, counsel for Petitioner sent to counsel for Respondent an e-mail stating that the request would be deemed admitted due to the failure to respond. The Commission did not respond to this e-mail, answer the request, or file an objection. 21. On December 5, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Order. As support for the Motion, Petitioner asserts 10 that the material facts in this proceeding are undisputed because of Respondent’s failure to respond to the February request for admissions. More than 30 days (indeed, over 9 months) have passed since the request for admissions was serviced on the SNC, and the SNC has never responded to Castiello’s request for admissions. The SNC has never moved for additional time to respond, and has not attempted to demonstrate any excusable neglect for failing to timely respond. Nor is there any possibility of any excusable neglect for the SNC’s failure to respond -— especially after the Petitioner reported the SNC’s failure to response at least three different times. 22. Respondent did not file a response to the Motion for Summary Order as allowed under Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, and the time for doing so has expired. Respondent has not answered or objected to the request for admissions.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Summary Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceeding are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law. 21
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Corrections, discriminated against Petitioner, Nader F. Fahami, on the basis of his race, Asian, and his national origin, "Iranian".
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Nader F. Fahami, was born in Iran. Mr. Fahami's race is considered "Asian" for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Fahami has lived in the United States for approximately 16 years. The Department of Corrections (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Among other things, the Department is responsible for the design of facilities used to house inmates under the supervision of the Department. The design of facilities is the responsibility of the Bureau of Facility Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Bureau"), of the Department. Mr. Andres Santana is the Engineer Supervisor of the Bureau. Mr. Santana is an Hispanic male. Mr. Fahami's Qualifications for Employment. Mr. Fahami has been awarded a B.A. degree in architecture from Florida A & M University. Mr. Fahami has also been awarded a B.S. degree in Architectural Technology from Florida International University. Mr. Fahami has experience in engineering drafting. Mr. Fahami lacks working knowledge and experience with "computer aid drafting" or "CAD". CAD is a computer program utilized by the Bureau in its drafting work. Mr. Fahami's Application for Employment. During 1992, Mr. Fahami contacted Mr. Santana about employment with the Department. Although there were no employment opportunities available for Mr. Fahami at that time, Mr. Santana suggested that Mr. Fahami file a State of Florida employment application and resume in case future positions opened. In October of 1993, an Engineer I position became available with the Bureau and was advertised. Mr. Fahami filed an application for the position. Mr. Fahami was interviewed by Mr. Santana. Mr. Fahami was one of 17 applicants Mr. Santana and his immediate supervisor agreed to grant interviews to. The interviews for the Engineer I position consisted of asking applicants questions which they were allowed to answer verbally, and a written test. Mr. Fahami only correctly answered 8 of the twenty written questions, the lowest of any applicant. In fact, Mr. Fahami's score is the lowest ever achieved by the approximately 50 different individuals that have taken the written test for various positions with the Bureau. Mr. Fahami was not hired for the Engineer I position. During the first three months of 1994 the Department hired 3 architectural drafts-persons. The positions were to be paid for out of "Other Personnel Services" and are referred to as "OPS" positions. The first OPS position was advertised in the Tallahassee Democrat. The Bureau was looking for someone with a strong background in plumbing, heating and air conditioning and electrical drafting. The Bureau was also looking for someone with CAD experience. Mr. Fahami was interviewed by Mr. Santana for the first OPS position. Mr. Fahami's application for the position in October of 1993 had been maintained by the Department. Mr. Fahami was not, however, offered the position. Michael Kirkland was hired to fill the first OPS position. Mr. Kirkland, a white male, had 5 years of architectural drafting experience and 11 years of plumbing, air conditioning and electrical drafting experience. Mr. Fahami only had 4 years of architectural drafting experience and 3 years of plumbing, air conditioning and electrical drafting experience. A second OPS position was created because Mr. Kirkland could not report to work until he had given his former employer 2 weeks notice. For the second OPS position the Bureau was looking for someone with good manual drafting skills and experience in computer drafting. Mr. Fahami was not interviewed for the second OPS position since he had just been interviewed for the first position. Mr. Fahami was not offered the second OPS position. Maria Caspary, an Hispanic woman, was hired for the second OPS position. Ms. Caspary had 5 years of architectural manual drafting and 1 year of CAD experience. Ms. Caspary had been awarded bachelor degrees in design and in architecture. The third OPS position was created in February of 1994. For this position the Bureau was seeking a person with CAD experience. Mr. Fahami was not interviewed for this position either because of his recent interview. Mr. Fahami was also not hired by the third OPS position. Maria Yebra, an Hispanic woman, was hired for the third OPS position. Ms. Yebra had 2 years of CAD experience. She had also been awarded bachelor degrees in design and in architecture. In addition to the OPS positions created in 1994, the Department created another OPS position in March of 1995. The Bureau was seeking an individual with manual and computer drafting skills. Mr. Fahami was not interviewed for the OPS position created in March of 1995. Nor was Mr. Fahami hired for the position. The OPS position created in March of 1995 was filled by Luis Lara, an Hispanic male. Mr. Lara had earned bachelor and masters degrees in architecture. Mr. Lara also had 8 years of drafting experience, including 2 years experience with CAD. The Department's Employment Decisions. In all four of the employment decisions related, supra, Mr. Santana recommended that his immediate supervisor, Mr. Steve Watson, hire the individual ultimately hired by the Department for the OPS positions. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Santana's recommendations were not related to the education and relevant experience of the individuals he recommended for the OPS positions as compared to Mr. Fahami's education and relevant experience. The evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Santana took into account Mr. Fahami's race or national origin in deciding not to recommend him for employment. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Watson made the decision to hire Mr. Kirkland, Ms. Caspary, Ms. Yebra or Mr. Lara based upon their race or national origin. The evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Watson failed to hire Mr. Fahami because of his race or national origin. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Fahami was more qualified than any of the individuals hired by the Department for the OPS positions at issue or that his race or national origin played any role in the Department's decision not to hire him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Nader Fahami's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 9th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 95-4954 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Fahami did not file a proposed order. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1 and 7. 2 Accepted in 8-9. 3 Accepted in 10. 4 Accepted in 6, 11, 14 and hereby accepted. 5 Accepted in 12 and hereby accepted. 6 Accepted in 13 and hereby accepted. 7 Accepted in 13 and 15. 8 Accepted in 16 and 18. 9 Accepted in 19-20. 10 Accepted in 21-23. 11 Accepted in 24-27. 12 Accepted in 25-27. COPIES FURNISHED: Nader F. Fahami 5800 University Boulevard; West 119 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 J. D. Lester, Supervisor Department of Corrections Civil Rights Unit 2601 Blairstone Road, Room 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact William Marcum is a career service employee with appeal rights to the Career Service Commission. In April, 1977, Marcum received a written reprimand from his supervisor, Alphonso Crowell, for being asleep on the job. On July 19, 1977, Alphonso Crowell observed Marcum, who was on duty in the dormitory of the Okeechobee School for Boys, from outside the dormitory through a large window. Crowell observed Marcum seated at his desk with his head leaning against the wall. Crowell could not see Marcum's face, but Marcum did not move for approximately twenty (20) minutes during which time Crowell observed him. Crowell directed Mr. George LaGrange, Marcum's direct supervisor, to relieve Marcum immediately. This incident resulted in counseling by the superintendent of the school, who determined that Marcum was suffering from arthritis and taking aspirin for this problem. Marcum was counseled but no disciplinary action was taken because he had been taking medication and was scheduled to be hospitalized. On August 15, 1977, Marcum returned to work having been pronounced fit for duty by his doctor and the agency's doctor. On August 17, 1977, George LaGrange walked into the dormitory to which Marcum was assigned at approximately 4 A.M. and approached Marcum from the right rear. LaGrange, wearing boots, walked to within six (6) feet of Marcum and observed Marcum for about five (5) minutes. Marcum was slumped forward in his seat and did not move during this period. LaGrange then spoke to Marcum and Marcum immediately returned and replied to LaGrange. Marcum denies that he was asleep on either occasion, but asserts that he was absorbed in thought about his personal affairs. Marcum pointed out that neither Crowell nor LaGrange observed his face and therefore could not tell whether he was asleep. Marcum's duties were direct custodial supervision of the children in the dormitory to which he was assigned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends to the Career Service Commission that they sustain the disciplinary action taken by the agency against William Marcum. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: William Marcum Route 3, Box 3575 Okeechobee, Florida 33472 K. C. Collette, Esquire 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 800 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dorothy Roberts, Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Art Adams, Director Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a permanent Career Service employee of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (DOR), State of Florida, who was serving as a Planner and Evaluator II, Class Code 5291, Position No. 04038, Planning and Development Section, Bureau of Planning, Research and Statistics, in July, 1977. (Composite Exhibit 3) The 1977 Florida Legislature reduced the number of authorized positions in the DOR through "productivity adjustment," effective July 1, 1977. By letter of July 26, 1977, the Secretary of the DOR requested the Secretary of Administration to approve a statewide competitive area for the positions to be abolished. By letter of July 27, the Secretary of Administration approved the requested competitive area to include all organizational units on a statewide basis within the Department. At that time, the DOR had four positions in the class of Planner and Evaluator II. These were then held by Petitioner, Sunil Nath, Position 00053, Edward M. Teuton, Position 07974, and Bill C. Schnitzer, Position Number 03756. All of these positions except Position 07974 were abolished as a result of the legislative mandate. The incumbents of the four positions met with Mr. James A. Ball, DOR Personnel Officer, on or about July 28, 1977. At that time, he informed them of the position deletions and consequent necessary layoffs. Ball indicated in his comments to the group that the Petitioner would not be adversely affected because he had the greatest number of retention points of the four individuals. It was further indicated by Ball to Petitioner at this meeting and in later discussions that Petitioner would assume the duties of the remaining Position 07974 and proceed to "phase in" to the job. By letters dated August 5, 1977, Nath, Teuton and Schnitzer were notified by the Secretary of the DOR of their layoff under State Personnel Rule 22A-7.11, and advised of their options and rights under pertinent law. (Composite Exhibits 1-4, Testimony of Ball, Fitzgibbon) By letter of August 31, 1977, to the State Personnel Director, the Secretary of the DOR requested that selective competition be approved under State Personnel Rule 22A-7.11(3) for the position of Planner and Evaluator II, DOR, Class Code 5291, Position Number 07974, among persons affected by layoff in the Department. The letter stated: The specific background necessary to perform the job requirements of this unique position of Mutual Participation Program Administrator are reflected below and relate directly to the duties of the position as reflected on the official Position Description, a copy of which is attached. The letter further indicated the particular qualifications for the position. The Position Description attached to the letter set forth the duties and responsibilities of the job, but did not specify particular qualifications required of the incumbent. Conley M. Kennison, State Personnel Director, in a letter of September 8, 1977, approved selective competition for the position in question "In accordance with Section 22A-7.11(3), Personnel Rules and Regulations, F.A.C., and based on the specific qualifications required of this position to function as the coordinator for the Mutual Participation Program as substantiated by the Position Description you submitted." The concept of selective competition for a position arises only in layoff situations. Under normal layoff procedures, an employee's number of retention points computed under Rule 22A-7.11 determines priority for available remaining positions. However, if selective competition is used, only those employees possessing the special qualifications for a particular position are eligible to compete therefor, and if several have the necessary qualifications, the employee with the highest retention points is selected. Approval for selective competition is based on special qualifications that must be derived from the official Position Description. In such cases, an economic impact statement is not prepared nor are the normal procedures for promulgation of a rule. Neither are Position Descriptions promulgated as rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Minimum qualifications for a particular class of positions are set forth in separate documents called Class Specifications. Position Descriptions are prepared by the affected agency and approved by the Department of Administration. In the instant case, the Deputy State Personnel Director approved selective competition for Position 07974 based upon qualifications considered necessary from the duties and responsibilities shown in the Position Description. (Composite Exhibit 2, Testimony of Dean) After approval had been obtained for selective competition for Position 07974, it was determined by DOR that only Edward M. Teuton, the incumbent of that position, possessed the necessary qualifications. As a result, Petitioner, who had no prior knowledge that selective competition was to be applied, was orally informed by his supervisor on September 13 or 14 that he would not receive the position and that Teuton would retain the same. On September 19, he received a letter dated September 14, 1977, from the Secretary of the DOR, which provided formal notice of layoff, and informed him of his right to appeal such action and to request demotion or reassignment to a position for which he might be eligible. He thereafter appealed the layoff and requested demotion in lieu thereof based on information received from the Department Personnel Officer who told him that he would have to take such action in order to retain state employment. (Composite Exhibit 4, Testimony of Petitioner)
