Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). Lloyd A. Perry was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Dana E. Pratt was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Prior to February 17, 1976, Lloyd A. Perry was employed by the Citrus County Road Department for a period of over four years. Immediately prior to the time that his employment was terminated, Perry was a roller operator. Except for rare occasions when he performed work as a flagman, or other work in conjunction with his roller work, Perry operated a tandem road roller. For the several months prior to February, 1976, Perry had continuously operated the same roller machine. Prior to February, 1976, none of Perry's supervisors informed him that his work was unsatisfactory, reprimanded him for performing work in an unsatisfactory manner, or indicated to him in any way that his job was in jeopardy for unsatisfactory performance of his duties. Dana E. Pratt had been employed by the Citrus County Road Department for approximately five years prior to February, 1976. For four years prior to that date he had been a motor grader operator. Pratt had annually received formal evaluations and his evaluations had always been very good. Prior to February, 1976, Pratt had never been criticized for below average or unsatisfactory work. He had never received any written reprimand for unsatisfactory performance on the job. From approximately December, 1973 until February, 1976, Perry had operated the newest grader machine in use by the Citrus County Road Department. No one else had operated the machine since it was acquired by the Citrus County Road Department. During February, 1976, Thomas Hutchinson was the Citrus County Road Superintendent. William Hitt was thee Assistant Road Superintendent. Hutchinson and Hitt served under the direction of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners. Perry, Pratt, and numerous other employees of the Citrus County Road Department had, prior to February, 1976, become dissatisfied with conditions in the Road Department, primarily the manner of direction given the department by Hutchinson and Hitt. On Sunday, February 8, 1976, Perry drafted a petition specifying numerous grievances against Hutchinson and Hitt. It was his intention to secure the signatures of employees of the Road Department on the petition, and to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. Perry sought the assistance of County Commissioner DeBusk in drafting the petition. DeBusk offered several suggestions and his daughter typed the petition for Perry. Perry secured six or seven signatures on that Sunday. He was the first person to sign the petition, and Dana Pratt was the third. On Monday, February 9, Pratt informed his office that he had business to attend to and would not be at work that day. He did not claim sick leave for the time he missed. Prior to work and during the lunch hour he called as many employees of the Road Department as he could. After working hours he waited at a business establishment called the "Country Store" which was located in close proximity to the place where Road Department employees checked out of work. Forty-six employees of the Road Department signed the petition. Dana Pratt assisted in soliciting people to sign the petition. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that those persons signing the petition did so other than freely and voluntarily. On Tuesday, February 10, 1976, Perry called his supervisor, Mr. Hutchinson, and told him that he had business to attend to. Hutchinson asked him if he was going to solicit more signatures. Perry told him that he was not. The Board of County Commissioners was meeting on that date, and Perry presented the petition to the Board. Members of the Board discussed the petition at length during the meeting. One commissioner asked Perry if he was big enough to go back to work and forget about the matter. Perry said that he was. On February 11, 1976 Perry returned to work at the regular time. Rather than being assigned to his regular duty as a roller operator, he was assigned to flag traffic for a grader operator. He continued in that capacity until Tuesday, February 17. On that date, at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. Tom Morton, the grader foreman, informed Perry that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Both Morton and William Hitt told Perry that they did not know why he was fired. Dana Pratt attended the County Commission meeting on February 10. He was asked about whether he threatened a Road Department employee named Langley with respect to signing the petition. Pratt told the County Commission that he did not threaten Langley, and no evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that he did. On February 12, 1976, Pratt used the new grader machine that he had been using for some time prior thereto. At the end of that day his supervisors informed him that he would be using the oldest machine in the Department thereafter. He began using it on February 13. It took some time to get it started on that date. It also took some time to get it started on Monday, February 16. This was an old machine, and had been difficult to start for some years prior to the time that it was assigned to Pratt. At 12:30 on February 17, 1976, Tom Morton informed Pratt that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Pratt was never given any reasons for his termination. On February 17, 1976, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners acted to terminate the employment of Perry and Pratt. These actions were taken upon the recommendation of Mr. Hutchinson. Ostensibly the reason for Pratt's termination was that he had marked out on sick leave on a day when he was not sick. Ostensibly the reason for Perry's termination was that he had been missing from the job for approximately an hour. The evidence would not support a finding that Perry and Pratt were fired for these reasons. These reasons offered by Hutchinson, and followed by the Board of County Commissioners, were used as a ruse. On February 18, 1976, the day after Pratt and Perry were fired, Hutchinson called a meeting of all employees of the Road Department. Hutchinson told the employees that he had nothing to do with the termination, but he also told them that he would tolerate no more petitions and that if anyone did not like working conditions at the Road Department they could leave. He said that he had four County Commissioners in his pocket, and he reminded the employees that unemployment in Citrus County was high. He told the employees that he would take care of any petitions they distributed. During the week the petition was distributed, Hutchinson told one employee of the Road Department, James Johnson, that Johnson could be put in jail for signing the petition. During that same week he told his assistant superintendent, William Hitt, that all of the men who signed the petition had to go. After Perry and Pratt were fired, Hutchinson told Hitt that he got two, and he would get the rest. The basis for Hutchinson's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that Perry and Pratt be terminated was the fact that they participated in the distribution of the petition, and presenting it to the Board of County Commissioners. There was no evidence offerred at the hearing to indicate that any members of the Board of County Commissioners knew Hutchinson was presenting false reasons for the terminations; however, they did act to adopt the recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners did know that Pratt and Perry were among the leaders in distributing the petition highly critical of Hutchinson's work, and was clearly on notice that Hutchinson may have ulterior motives in recommending their dismissal.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unfair employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2012), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Nepton is a Hispanic man who worked as a collector for CCS from November, 2011, to February, 2012. CCS is a collection agency that employs approximately 80 collectors, who are divided into departments based on the different accounts they service. Mr. Nepton was originally hired to work under the supervision of Julio Castellon, and then was transferred to a unit supervised by Danielle Santilli. All of the work collectors perform is via telephone; persons who have outstanding bills are called in order to attempt collection of the debt. During his training in Ms. Santilli's department, he received most of his training from Ms. Santilli. According to Mr. Nepton, during these training sessions, Ms. Santilli made derogatory comments about Hispanic people. If the person being called was Hispanic, she would mention that Hispanic people were stupid, dumb, and never paid their bills. Mr. Nepton claims that the comments were made throughout his entire training, which lasted approximately one month. He claims that he reported his dislike of the derogatory comments to Ariel Castellon, a supervisor. Ms. Santilli testified, and denied ever making any derogatory or inappropriate remarks about Hispanics. Mr. Castellon also denied any knowledge of Ms. Santilli making any such remarks, and testified that Mr. Nepton never complained of any such comments while he worked at CCS. Lori French testified that in her capacity as the Human Resources Director, she never received any type of complaint regarding Ms. Santilli from any employee. The undersigned credits the testimony of the CCS employees, finding it consistent and credible in light of the scant evidence produced by Mr. Nepton. Mr. Nepton did not produce a single witness who could corroborate his testimony, despite the fact that the collectors worked in an open area, in close proximity to each other. The employee handbook instructed employees to report any workplace harassment of any type with the Human Resources Department. Mr. Nepton never filed such a complaint with the Human Resources Department. On February 1, 2012, Mr. Nepton received a call from a patient of a hospital inquiring as to whether the account was paid in full. Mr. Nepton requested the patient's date of birth, but the patient asked why that information was necessary. Mr. Nepton raised his voice and became argumentative with the patient. When Mr. Nepton was asked about the phone call by his supervisor, he became argumentative in the presence of the other collectors. On February 2, 2012, Mr. Nepton met with management regarding the incident on the previous day. He became agitated, raised his voice, and pointed his finger in the supervisor's face. Mr. Nepton, who was on probationary status, was discharged from his employment on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Margie Ann Sims, was unlawfully terminated (by Respondent), Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is forty eight (48) years old. She commenced work for Respondent, Niagara Wires, a subsidiary of Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., located in Quincy, Florida during 1965 as an Accounts Payable Clerk. Petitioner was terminated on August 5, 1983, as a result of a reduction in staff and unsatisfactory work performance.1 During Petitioner's job tenure, she held various accounting and secretarial positions. Petitioner's initial duties were that of an accounting clerk and she later progressed to Assistant Chief Accountant. She later served as Corporate Bookkeeper and Secretary. Throughout her employment, her job duties were very broad and encompassed many areas of responsibility including overseeing accounts receivable, billings, payroll, bank statements, journal entries, wire transfers and financial statements. During 1975, Respondent's corporate office was moved to Quincy, Florida and Petitioner handled accounting and secretarial duties for the corporate office, dealt with banks making fund transfers, loan balancing and note arrangements; managed financial consolidation of Respondent's eight companies on a quarterly basis; maintained all pension plan records for Respondent's fourteen pension plans which included calculations of pension benefits, submission of wages and credited service to actuaries in preparation of various pension reports. Petitioner's other duties involved maintenance of company minute books, typing, submission and maintenance of files for all letters of credit issued; keeping patent and trademark files and assisted with telecopy, switchboard and TWX. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1976, Petitioner worked directly for Respondent's corporate secretary/treasurer, Robert Worrall. The assignment occurred as a result of a recommendation by Respondent's manufacturing manager, Don Anderson. Petitioner was considered the best of the three employees available to work for Worrall. Thereafter, several changes were made in Respondent's corporate makeup including the addition of the Lockport Felt Division in 1977. As a result, additional employees were placed in the accounting department and Petitioner's duties became more secretarial and clerical in nature than accounting. This situation remained unchanged until Petitioner's termination in 1983. Although Petitioner worked directly for Worrall, she was also expected to perform secretarial and clerical work for others in the accounting department, specifically including Harry Kurtz, Vice-President of Finance, Bruce Kennedy, Controller and Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager. While Petitioner's primary responsibility was to complete Worrall's work, she was also expected to perform work for other accountants and fiscal employees in the accounting department as she was the only trained employee in the accounting department available for typing duties. (TR 35, 106, 133-134, 117-119, 138, 142 and 153). Respondent has not maintained a formal policy concerning employee discipline or warnings for salaried employees, as Petitioner. (Testimony of Cairns and Worrall, TR 19, 46-47, 60 and 77). Commencing in 1980, Worrall became unhappy with Petitioner's work performance. This unhappiness took the form of counseling with Petitioner during year-end annual reviews and included the following deficiencies: "away from her work station when needed; too much time spent socializing with others; unwilling to work; pushing work back on Worrall; untimeliness and failing to timely complete work as assigned." (TR 85, 110, 116- 117). Like Worrall, other employees in the accounting department for whom Petitioner worked were dissatisfied with her performance during the years 1980-1983. Harry Kurtz, Vice- President of Finance, experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality including errors in typing and formatting, misspelled words and inaccurate numbers to the point where he did not want her (Petitioner) to perform his (Kurtz) work. He was thus forced to seek assistance from persons outside the accounting department, including Pat Simmons who replaced Petitioner, to perform his work. Kurtz related these problems to Worrall. (TR 128, 129-133, 131 and 136). Bruce Kennedy, Controller, experienced similar problems with Petitioner's work quality. He noted Petitioner frequently misspelled words and transposed numbers. Kennedy experienced problems concerning timeliness and the invalid excuses by Petitioner for failing to complete assigned work as scheduled. (TR 137-139). Based on Petitioner's poor work quality, Kennedy went outside the accounting department to get assistance in performing his clerical and secretarial duties. Kennedy informed Worrall of his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work. Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager, also experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality in regards to accuracy and neatness. Burnett related an incident where Petitioner used so much "white-out" to make corrections that numbers on ledger sheets were not legible. Burnett also experienced problems with Petitioner in getting work returned timely. He also found it necessary to go outside the accounting_ department to solicit the assistance of Pat Simmons to perform his work. Burnett related to Worrall his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance. (TR 128, 150). Linda Jaudzimas is presently employed with Niagara Wire Weaving Employees Credit Union. She has held that position since approximately May of 1980. During the years 1978 through May of 1980, Jaudzimas was employed as an accounting clerk in the corporate accounting office for Niagara Lockport Industries. During that time period, she worked directly with Petitioner and Worrall. Jaudzimas described Petitioner and Worrall as having a very good work relationship and that Worrall depended upon Petitioner a lot. However, since May of 1980, Jaudzimas had only limited contact with Petitioner The typical degree of contact would be only to "pick up reports; I would get information from pensions for time reporting periods." (TR 54 and 58). Don Anderson is presently employed as the Manufacturing Manager for Respondent. Anderson has been in Respondent's employ since 1971. From 1971 through January 1, 1974, Anderson was Respondent's Chief Accountant. Anderson had no direct knowledge concerning Petitioner's work performance since January of 1974. Anderson corroborated Cairns and Worrall's testimony that Respondent had no formal policy concerning disciplinary action taken against salaried employees, as Petitioner. (TR 60). Respondent conducted informal evaluations of salaried employees, including Petitioner, at the end of each year in conjunction with salary increases. During Petitioner's 1981 work performance evaluation, Worrall discussed his concerns with Petitioner including the fact that she spent too much time talking to other people; that he always had to look for her and she pushed work back on him. Petitioner's time away from her work station and her negative attitude toward the company's insurance program were items of discussion. (TR 17; 84-88). An entire list of Worrall's concerns respecting Petitioner's job performance were placed in her personnel file during the 1981 annual performance review. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Petitioner recalls Worrall using that list during their meetings. (TR 36). Petitioner's performance did not improve during the following year and Worrall expressed the same concerns to her during her annual work performance review during 1982. (TR 115-116). Petitioner received "good" salary increases during the late 70's however, due to her poor performance from 1980-1982, Worrall recommended that she receive only the minimum cost of living increases for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. In mid 1983, Respondent made a decision to reorganize its corporate offices by moving the sales office of Niagara Lockport from Quincy to Starkeville, Mississippi and by making a change in the research and development department. Pat Simmons, age 41, was secretary for the vice-present of research and development. Worrall was familiar with Ms. Simmons and her work having seen it first hand. Additionally, she was highly recommended by her then supervisors. Finally, she had performed work considered to be "high quality" by other employees in the accounting department including Kurtz, Kennedy and Burnett. When Simmons became available due to the reorganization, Worrall decided to replace Petitioner with Simmons. Petitioner's job had become primarily secretarial and clerical in nature and Worrall desired a competent executive secretary to replace her. (TR 88 90, 92, 94, 121-122, 127). Petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). Petitioner's duties were assumed by Simmons (95 percent) and Elaine Hall (5 percent) who was retained since she- possessed requisite accounting skills. Hall was able to complete the cash report in two hours, a job that had taken Petitioner the better part of a day to perform. (TR 86). As a result of the reorganization, two other employees, Loretta Hood (mid 30's) and Virginia Jeffcoat (mid 50's) were terminated. Petitioner was terminated in August, 1983 for the reasons that her performance was not satisfactory and a qualified person (Simmons) had become available due to Respondent's corporate reorganization and staff reduction. This was told to Petitioner at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; TR 68, 93). Subsequent to her termination, Petitioner requested that Worrall write her a letter of recommendation. Worrall complied, however, Petitioner was not pleased and asked him to write a second one giving him an example to follow (Respondent's Exhibit 7). Petitioner wanted a "good" letter of recommendation so that she could easily obtain another job. In writing the recommendation, Worrall followed his policy of not commenting on negatives but merely set out the type of work Petitioner performed. Petitioner was still unsatisfied with Worrall's second letter and she therefore asked the Respondent's President, Malcolm Cairns, to write a letter of recommendation for her. As with Worrall, Petitioner participated in the drafting of the letter for Cairns by providing him with an example. (TR 22, 23 and 70). Cairns did not include anything negative in the letter so that it would be easier for Petitioner to obtain another job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was not terminated due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire 229 E. Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Swift, Currie, NcGhee and Hiers, P.A., by Victor A. Cavanough 771 Spring Street, N.W. Post Office Box 54247 Atlanta, Georgia 30379-2401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240/ Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether policies of Respondent which are utilized in the course of investigations of Respondent’s law enforcement officers constitute rules subject to requirements of Chapter 120 Florida States; and, if so, whether such rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority contrary to requirements of Section 120.56 and Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The parties have jointly stipulated to the following factual statements set forth in paragraphs numbered 1-10. Petitioner Schluter has been employed by Respondent’s Division of the Florida Highway Patrol, serving the past eight years as an airplane pilot. A career service employee with permanent status, Schluter grieved his September 1996 dismissal from Respondent’s employment under collective bargaining agreement procedures existing between the State of Florida and the Florida Police Benevolent Association. A final decision has not yet been reached. In August 1995, Schluter was informed by Respondent that a complaint had been filed against him and that an investigation of the complaint was being conducted by Respondent. To facilitate Respondent’s investigation, the following conditions were imposed upon Schluter at the time he was placed on administrative duty: Schluter was not informed of the nature of the complaint filed against him, nor provided a description of the charges, nor provided a copy of the complaint. However, at the time of his administrative interview, Schluter was provided the written statements of all witnesses, including the person making the initial complaint. Schluter was removed from his duties as an airplane pilot and assigned to remain in his home during his duty hours each day. Schluter was specifically assigned his home as his duty station, was required to be available to contact on his home telephone, and was forbidden to leave his home without permission from his superiors. The change in work site was communicated to Schluter by memorandum dated August 23, 1995, assigning him to administrative duties at the Bradenton Station, and September 5, 1995, reassigning him to administrative duties at his residence. Schluter was denied the right to work off-duty police employment during his non- duty hours during the pendency of the investigation. He was not denied the right to work off-duty in non-police employment. The conditions on Schluter remained in place during the duration of the investigation which continued for approximately one year. Respondent has a policy of removing law enforcement officers under investigation, in certain circumstances, from their normal duties, and assigning them indefinitely to remain in their own residences as a duty station. Officers subject to this directive are permitted to leave their residences during duty hours only with the permission of their agency superiors. This policy has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Application of this policy to Petitioner Schluter was based upon the circumstances of his case and policy guidelines of the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent has a policy of ordering its law enforcement officers who are under investigation, in certain circumstances, to have no contact with any person who may be a witness in the investigation. This policy has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent rationalizes this policy as an effort to comply with Section 112.533, Florida Statutes. Respondent has a policy of prohibiting law enforcement officers under investigation, in certain circumstances, from earning extra compensation by working in police off-duty employment. This policy has not been adopted as a rule in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent’s rationale for the policy is that police off-duty employment is not possible after Respondent has removed an officer’s gun, badge, police vehicle, and other indicia of authority. Law enforcement officers employed by Respondent have the right by virtue of a contract between the Florida Police Benevolent Association and the Florida Department of Management Services, acting as agent for the Governor of Florida to work in police off-duty employment. Article 16 of the current collective bargaining agreement provides for employment outside state government, including police employment. Respondent has a policy of denying public records access to records and information gathered during the course of an investigation of a law enforcement officer which are not related to a written complaint against the officer. This policy has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent’s rationale for this policy is that it is undertaken pursuant to Section 112.533, Florida Statutes, and FHP guidelines. To persons whom she interviewed, the primary investigator specifically identified Petitioner Schluter as the subject of the investigation. She identified him as the object of her investigations to employees of Respondent, to his private friends and associations, to other private persons, to his bank and to merchants in the community. Respondent contends Schluter was identified only where it was necessary to do so to effect the investigation and pursuant to investigative procedures and Section 112.533, Florida Statutes. Respondent has a policy of providing every witness from whom an investigator seeks information with the identity of the person under investigation. This policy has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent’s rationale for the policy is that an officer under investigation may be revealed during the course of the investigation in order to conduct a witness interview and with confidentiality maintained in the context of the overall investigation. Other Facts The Florida Association of State Troopers, Inc., (FAST) is a non-profit Florida corporation, composed of Florida Highway Patrol active troopers, reserve and retired troopers, and auxiliary troopers. Approximately 1000 members of FAST are law enforcement officers currently employed by Respondent. The primary purposes of FAST are to provide representation of its members, to advance the interests of its members with the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) and to improve treatment of its members employed by the FHP. An additional purpose of FAST is to promote the enforcement of laws protecting law enforcement officers. FAST provides legal representation to its members in matters directly relating to their employment with the FHP and to members for matters occurring off-duty which are related to their employment. Both FAST and Petitioner Schluter have standing to bring this proceeding With regard to Respondent’s policy of assigning those officers who are under investigation to indefinitely remain in their own residences as a duty station, the criteria for imposition of that policy is set forth in the FHP Policy Manual and specifically FHP Policy 8.01-9. While the term “home duty” is not specifically mentioned in FHP Policy 8.01-9, the same criteria are utilized in making a home duty assignment. These include circumstances involving physical or psychological fitness for duty evaluations of an employee; investigations of criminal allegations; investigations of policy violations by an employee for which dismissal is a penalty; instances where it has been determined that an employee would interfere with an investigation; instances where on-duty status of the employee would result in damage to property or be detrimental to the best interest of the state; and instances where there is possibility of injury to the employee or others if permitted to remain in an on-duty locale. Testimony offered by Respondent at the final hearing that promulgation of FHP Policy 8.01-9 as a rule is impracticable, is not credited in view of the existence of the policy and its enumerated criteria, its general applicability to a class of persons, and its effect upon substantial and personal interests when an individual is required to use his personal home as a work station i.e., Petitioner Schulter had no choice, other than insubordination, except to comply with the home assignment, use his home as his work station ,and thereby incur increased home operating expenses. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent has an policy, not promulgated in accordance with requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, of ordering law enforcement officers under investigation to have no contact with any potential witnesses. Petitioner Schluter received two directives or orders requiring his compliance with this policy. Respondent’s enforcement of this policy deprived Petitioner Schluter of most of his social contacts and affected his substantial interest since his social contacts were generally FHP troopers and other Respondent employees. Schluter was virtually cut-off from most social contacts as a result. Every citizen has a strong personal interest in personal and private associations. Respondent presented no creditable or persuasive evidence that it would be impractical to develop a rule governing whether a “no contact” order should issue to an employee, or that Respondent’s ability to grant a waiver from such a published rule would not mitigate any practicality problems that could be otherwise encountered. Similarly, Respondent’s Patrol Policy 5.10, also not promulgated in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, documents Respondent’s off-duty police employment policy for members assigned to administrative leave in the course of an on-going investigation. The policy prohibits off-duty police employment for FHP members assigned to administrative leave in conjunction with an on-going investigation. As established by testimony at the final hearing, this policy encompasses the same criteria as that used in determining whether to place an employee on administrative or home duty. Schluter was substantially affected by Respondent’s off-duty police employment policy in that he was relieved from all law enforcement and aircraft duties with Respondent, inclusive of all indicia of his law enforcement authority (badge, gun and motor vehicle) with a resulting loss of approximately $1,000 per month in additional, private income. Respondent maintains that the off-duty police employment policy for members assigned to administrative leave ought not be promulgated as a formal administrative rule because of the ever-changing environment regarding off-duty employment and need for constant change in such policies. Contrary to Respondent’s position, the impracticability of promulgation of this policy is not credited in view of testimony by Respondent’s witness at hearing that prohibition of off-duty police employment for employees on administrative leave is not likely to change in the future. In the course of an investigative interview on November 10, 1995, Petitioner Schluter was denied access to lists of persons interviewed or written statements of persons interviewed, contrary to provisions of Section 112.532(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s admitted policy of denying public access to records and information gathered during the course of an investigation of a law enforcement officer affects individual rights to access of such information and denies access to accused officers of an information avenue which may be utilized in preparation of a defense to charges Respondent may level against an officer. Additionally, Respondent’s blanket prohibition of access ignores those exceptions to confidentiality of such information set forth in Section 112.533(2), Florida Statutes; exceptions which permit access to review of certain investigation records. The investigation of Petitioner Schluter was initiated without a written complaint and his substantial interests were affected by Respondent’s no access policy. The impracticability of a rule addressing access, as well as providing prior notice to individuals like Schluter and others who may be similarly situated, of written investigation records within the scope of statutory limitations has not been demonstrated by Respondent. It is Respondent’s admittedly unpromulgated policy to identify the individual person who is the subject of the investigation to every witness interviewed in the course of an investigation. There is no statement of this practice in the FHP manual. The practice affects the substantial interest of individuals such as Petitioner Schluter by identifying him to his social and work contacts as a person under investigation. While maintaining that rule-making on the topic of when to identify the subject of an investigation in an interview in the course of an investigation is impractical, testimony by Respondent’s witness at final hearing establishes that investigations of the type involving Petitioner Schluter generally require that the investigation subject’s identity be disclosed to the interviewee. Consequently, testimony that promulgation of this policy is impractical is not credited. Respondent has an unwritten policy of refusing to allow the legal representative of a law enforcement officer to speak on the record during the course of an administrative or investigative interview with an officer, or to permit a consultation between an employee and counsel prior to the employee’s answer to a question. Any information or argument counsel for an employee desires to place on the record must be presented through the employee. Such a policy affects the substantial interest of officers who are the subject of investigation by impinging upon their right to counsel, statutorily codified in Section 112.532, Florida Statues, and impedes the effectiveness of counsel. The policy is applied in all such interviews. Impracticability of a rule addressing the role of counsel representing an employee in an administrative interview has not been creditably addressed by Respondent.
