Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent, Lavern W. Burroughs, began work with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) on July 1, 1987, and that she was not present for work on July 22, 25, or 26 of 1988. Between March 3, 1988, and July 7, 1988, Ms. Burroughs, a clerk typist, was absent on fourteen occasions. Each time "LW" was entered beside her name on an attendance and leave sheet. "LW" is used when an employee has used up all sick and annual leave, but is nevertheless authorized to take leave. The designation LW means leave without pay, but it does not indicate whether leave was authorized or unauthorized. In December of 1987, Ms. Burroughs had received a "conference letter," HRS' Exhibit No. 1, after discussing her attendance problems with Mr. Weston and his immediate supervisor, Mr. Mathis. On April 15, 1988, Mr. Weston sent her a letter in 4 which he reprimanded her for being absent without leave. HRS' Exhibit No. 2. The letter stated: It is hoped that you will view this disciplinary measure in a constructive manner and there will not be a recurrence of this nature. However, you are cautioned that further offenses of this standard will result in more stringent disciplinary measure of a ten (10) days suspension without pay up to dismissal. Mr. Mathis testified that the ordinary practice, if petitioner's absenteeism had been handled as a career service matter, would have seen a ten (10) day suspension as HRS' next response, in the event of another unauthorized absence; and that dismissal would not have occurred, unless the ten (10) day suspension failed to cure the problem. On Thursday, July 14, 1988, Ms. Burroughs went to work, as it turned out, for the last time. The next morning she called in, shortly after 9:00 o'clock, to report that she had received notice of judicial proceedings designed to foreclose on her house. Unable to reach Mr. Weston, she asked for his supervisor, Mr. Mathis. Unable to reach him, she spoke to Ms. Evan Gibson, Mr. Mathis' secretary, and told her that she would not be coming to work. Ms. Gibson said she would relay the message. Ms. Burroughs left for Georgia in an effort to obtain money from a cousin with which to retain a lawyer to represent her in the foreclosure proceedings. The next Monday, July 18, 1988, Ms. Burroughs' daughter, Sheronda, telephoned HRS' Jacksonville offices. Apparently she spoke to Mr. Weston when she reported that Ms. Burroughs had trouble with her eye. On July 20, 1988, Ms. Burroughs telephoned herself. Again unable to reach Mr. Weston, she ended up telling Ms. Gibson that her eye was running and painful. Also on July 20, 1988, she visited the Riverside Clinic, received a prescription for erythromycin, and filled it that day. A nurse filled out a form employee's medical excuse saying that Ms. Burroughs had been under the care of a doctor at the clinic "and may return to work on 7/21/88." Joint Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Weston has never denied an employee's request for sick leave. Ms. Burroughs had been granted sick leave on more than three occasions and had produced a doctor's statement on each occasion. On Thursday, July 21, 1988, Ms. Burroughs called and spoke to Mr. Weston. In a telephone conversation that lasted perhaps two minutes, she told him about the problem with her eye, and also spoke to him about the threatened foreclosure. She did not say when she would return to work, but it was clear that she was not coming in that day. After Mr. Weston responded, "Okay," his only contribution to the conversation, Ms. Burroughs said goodbye and hung up. She did not explicitly ask for leave, even as she had never done before. Her eye stopped running on July 25, 1988, a Monday. On July 26, 1988, Ms. Burroughs set out for work, having spent, she testified, all her money, except for a quarter she had with her, on gasoline, for transportation to and from work that week. When her car overheated on 1-495 she was obliged to cut her journey short. She used her only quarter to telephone her brother's house, where a sister also lived. She asked this sister to call work to tell them what had happened. Instead, a friend, Wanda Stewart, learned the circumstances from Ms. Burroughs' sister, and made the telephone call to report why petitioner would not be in that day. Anna Williams, who worked in Mr. Weston's unit last summer, took the call. Because he was not in the office, she relayed the message to Mr. Mathis' secretary. When Ms. Burroughs' called herself, on July 27, 1988, she was informed she no longer had a job.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Quaralend R. Hudson, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a child care worker. Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In an earlier preliminary decision, a DCFS committee denied the request. Petitioner is now barred from working in a position of special trust because of a disqualifying offense which occurred in North Carolina in 1992. On December 15, 1991, she was arrested for false imprisonment in Sampson County, North Carolina. Upon advice of her court-appointed counsel, on June 2, 1992, she pled guilty to that charge and was sentenced to two years' supervised probation and ordered to pay $445.00 in costs and attorney's fees. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of probation. In explaining the circumstances surrounding her arrest, Petitioner noted that she was a passenger in her boyfriend's automobile when he became involved in an altercation with another person who owed him money. During the altercation, her boyfriend forced the other person into his car. Both Petitioner and her boyfriend were subsequently arrested for false imprisonment. Since her conviction, Petitioner has an unblemished record and a history of steady employment. From 1993 to 1996, she was an assistant manager at a store in North Carolina. She then moved to Tallahassee, Florida, where she worked for approximately 18 months as an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant. In January 1999, Petitioner was employed as a worker at Kids R' It, a child care center in Tallahassee. Although an initial background screening failed to reveal her criminal record, a second check revealed the disqualifying offense, and Petitioner was forced to resign her position in May 1999. Since that time, she has worked with a local telemarketing firm. Petitioner has been married for five years, lives in a stable environment, regularly attends church, and has turned her life around. She enjoys working with children, and there is no evidence that she would pose a danger to children. According to her former employer, Petitioner was an asset to the day care center, a loving, caring employee, dedicated and dependable, and an "exceptional" person. If the request is approved, Petitioner will return to her former job. On March 9, 1999, or after the first background screening had been performed, Petitioner signed an Affidavit of Good Moral Character for her employer. In the affidavit, she swore that she had never been found guilty or entered a plea of guilty or no contest to any of an enumerated list of crimes, including false imprisonment, regardless of whether the records had been sealed or expunged. As noted above, Petitioner had pled guilty to that charge in North Carolina in 1992. At hearing, Petitioner explained that when she signed the affidavit, she was under the mistaken impression that she had pled no contest (rather than guilty), and that this had the effect of expunging the 1992 conviction from her record. Even so, the instructions on the affidavit made clear that her conviction, even if the result of a no contest plea, and later sealed or expunged, must still be disclosed. Therefore, it is assumed that when she executed the affidavit, Petitioner was attempting to conceal the North Carolina conviction. To her credit, however, Petitioner voluntarily disclosed the matter to her employer a short time later. Given the foregoing considerations, it is found that Petitioner poses no threat to children through continued employment at a day care center. However, because she executed a false affidavit less than six months ago, there is less than clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation since Petitioner's plea of guilty in 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Quaralend R. Hudson 7504 Messer Court Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Steven Wallace, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, No. 252-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner abandoned her position of employment and resigned from the career service.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Hermia Reid, began her employment with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) on April 29, 1985. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, she was a registered nurse and held the career service position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor at the Landmark Learning Center, a DHRS facility. Petitioner had been given a copy of the DHRS Employee Handbook which contained the pertinent attendance and leave policies. Petitioner was on authorized annual leave for a vacation from June 25, 1990 through July 10, 1990. She was scheduled to return to work on July 11, 1990. For her vacation, Petitioner traveled to the State of New York to visit relatives. On July 1, 1990, Petitioner received injuries to her neck and back from an automobile accident. On July 2, 1990, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Victor Brooks, a physician whose office is in Yonkers, New York. Dr. Brooks determined that Petitioner required therapy and bed rest for three to four weeks. On Friday, July 6, 1990, Petitioner telephoned Claude Sherman, her supervisor, and told him of her injuries and of her inability to return to work as scheduled. Petitioner requested an extension of her leave. Mr. Sherman verbally granted a one-week extension of her authorized leave on the condition that Petitioner send him a letter from her doctor. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner returned to Dr. Brooks and received a note from him which he dated July 2, 1990, the date of the initial visit. This note provided in pertinent part as follows: The above named individual was in a motor vehicle accident and suffered neck and back injuries. Due to her present condition, it was decided that she should receive therapy and bed rest over a period of 3-4 weeks. On July 10, 1990, Petitioner gave the note from Dr. Brooks dated July 2, 1990, to her brother and asked him to mail it to Mr. Sherman by certified mail, return receipt requested. On July 20, 1990, Petitioner became concerned that the receipt for the certified mailing had not been returned and asked her brother about the mailing. Petitioner learned that her brother had forgotten to mail the note. Petitioner's brother mailed the note dated July 2, 1990, to Mr. Sherman on July 21, 1991. On July 30, 1990, Ulysses Davis and Mr. Sherman, as Superintendent and as Executive Nursing Director of Landmark, respectively, mailed to Petitioner at her home address in Miramar, Florida, a letter which had been dated July 23, 1990. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: You have not called in or reported to work since July 10, 1990, and therefore you have abandoned your position as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor and are deemed to have resigned from the Career Service according to Chapter 22A-7.010(2)(a) of Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Your resignation will be effective on the date you receive this letter or on the date we receive the undelivered letter advising you of your abandonment. At the time the letter of July 23, 1990, was mailed to Petitioner, the note from Dr. Brooks dated July 2, 1990, had not been received by Mr. Sherman. Because Mr. Sherman did not receive a doctor's note from Petitioner prior to July 23, 1990, he did not authorize her leave after her authorized annual leave expired on July 11, 1990. Dr. Brook's note dated July 2, 1990, was received by Landmark on or about August 2, 1990. 1/ The letter from Mr. Sherman and Mr. Davis was mailed to Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. Daphney Gaylord, Petitioner's neighbor, received this mailing on Petitioner's behalf and signed the return receipt. Petitioner did not receive the letter, nor was she made aware of its contents, until August 15, 1990. On July 27, 1990, Petitioner returned to Dr. Brooks and received another note which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The above named was examined by me today and as a result, I am requesting a follow up visit in two weeks as she is not ready to return to work. Dr. Brook's note of July 27, 1990, was mailed by certified mail to Mr. Sherman by Petitioner's brother on August 2, 1990, and was received by Mr. Sherman on August 6, 1990. After visiting Dr. Brooks on July 27, 1990, Petitioner attempted to reach Mr. Sherman by telephone to advise him of her status. Mr. Sherman was not available so Petitioner talked with Mr. Sherman's wife. Mrs. Sherman also worked at Landmark, but she was not Petitioner's supervisor. Mr. Sherman was unaware that Petitioner had spoken with his wife. On August 13, 1990, Dr. Brooks discharged Petitioner from his care and authorized her to return to work after she had visited her physician in Florida. Dr. Brook's note of August 13, 1990, provided, in pertinent part: As per previous notes and as per complete physical examination today it is my feeling that the above named can return to work after seeing her regular M.D. On August 14, 1990, Petitioner returned to Florida. On August 15, 1990, Petitioner was examined by Dr. Sylvia Cohn, a physician practicing in Pembroke Pines, Florida, who advised that Petitioner would be able to return to work on August 20, 1990. Also on August 15, 1990, Petitioner met with Mr. Sherman at Landmark. Mr. Sherman advised Petitioner that her employment had been terminated, asked whether she had received his letter dated July 23, 1990, and advised her to talk with Thelma Olifant, Landmark's personnel director. Petitioner went home after unsuccessfully attempting to locate Ms. Olifant. After she returned home on August 15, 1990, Petitioner contacted her neighbor, Ms. Gaylord, and received from her the certified letter from Mr. Sherman and Mr. Davis dated July 23, 1990. Petitioner had no history of discipline concerning abuse of leave policies. Petitioner did not intend to resign her position with the career service.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Petitioner did not abandon her career service position and which orders that Petitioner be reinstated with back-pay to her career service position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department’s Division of Real Estate was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of real estate salespersons and brokers in Florida and for the presentation of disciplinary cases regarding those individuals on behalf of and before the Florida Real Estate Commission. The Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker having been issued license number 0453845. Respondent was a broker at Quality Home Realty Inc., located at 8319 North 40th Street in Tampa. On or about June 10, 1996, Respondent, who was then licensed as a real estate salesperson in Florida, submitted an application for licensure as a real estate broker in this state. Respondent answered “no” to question 9 of the application, which reads, in pertinent part: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? . . . If you intend to answer “NO” because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court, . . . you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering “NO.” Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state, and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. As a result of this application and her passing the brokers’ examination, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida. In fact, however, on January 13, 1992, Respondent had pleaded nolo contendere in County Court in Hillsborough County to a charge of obtaining property by worthless check. Respondent was licensed as a salesperson at the time. Adjudication was withheld and Respondent was ordered to make restitution and pay a fine and costs of $87.00, which she did. Respondent does not deny that she entered the plea as alleged. She contends, however, that at the time the check was issued, she was in the hospital receiving treatment for chemical damage to her lungs. She alleges that she had given several personal checks on her account, signed in blank, to her niece, Ms. Palmer, who was supposed to pay her bills with them after first depositing sufficient funds, which Respondent had also given her, to the bank to cover the checks. Respondent contends that her niece did not make the deposits on time and the check in issue, written to pay for automobile repairs, was dishonored. The repair man did not contact her to obtain reimbursement, but the check was, nonetheless, subsequently redeemed. Respondent’s factual allegations in this regard were confirmed by Ms. Palmer, and they are so found. Respondent also contends that several years later, by the time she filled out the application form for licensure as a broker, she had forgotten about the incident because, she claims, the judge had advised her the charge against her would be dismissed upon her making restitution and her payment of the fine and costs. She claims she did not believe she had a criminal conviction which had to be listed. She also contends that since the incident was a matter of public record, she had no reason to hide it, and that her failure to list it on the application was the result of a simple mistake. Her claim of mistake is rejected. Respondent has been a licensed real estate professional since being licensed as a salesperson in January 1995. To her knowledge, no complaints have ever been lodged against her, nor has any other disciplinary action ever been taken against her. The records of the Division reflect no complaints or any prior disciplinary action. However, Respondent admits that several years prior to her licensure as a salesperson, she was arrested for assault. That charge was dismissed. Respondent is presently active as a real estate broker and derives all her support from her practice. She claims to love the real estate business and contends she has a good reputation in the business community. In that regard, four individuals, including two real estate brokers, a deputy sheriff, and a long-standing friend and associate, submitted letters in support of Respondent’s continued licensure. The two brokers attest to her honesty, integrity, and professionalism, as did the deputy, who also works in the profession. The friend, an associate in community activities, attests to Respondent’s extensive involvement in youth reclamation activities and her church, and describes Respondent as a role model for the youth of the community. All support her maintaining her license and her continued participation in the profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Eulauia S. Harris guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and placing her license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Gillis & Wilsen 1999 West Colonial Drive Suite 211 Orlando, Florida 32804 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James Kimbler Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the petitioner's action of suspending respondent for three days without pay be AFFIRMED. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Staff Attorney, HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William J. Manikas, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Jacksonville, Florida 32303 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners and holds license No. ME 005851. On 1 November 1979 Respondent was adjudged guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a controlled substance by deception. He was sentenced to an "indeterminate term of from six (6) months to five (5) years" and was committed to the Lawtey Correctional Institute, Lawtey, Florida. John Carroll, a narcotics detective with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, testified that he had conducted the investigation which led to the arrest and conviction of Respondent. This witness had no personal knowledge that Respondent provided one Fowler with blank prescription forms or forms containing only Respondent's signature, that Fowler paid Respondent cash, or that Respondent knew or should have known that Fowler was obtaining controlled substances with these forged prescriptions and selling these substances on the street. In his testimony Respondent admitted that he could have approved some forged prescriptions when called by the pharmacist to verify the prescriptions without knowing who the prescriptions were for.
Findings Of Fact Michael A. Doub was employed as a correctional officer I at DeSoto Correctional Institution, Department of Corrections. He held this position from October 3, 1986 until he was determined to have abandoned his position on June 8, 1989. During this period, Doub's work performance had been rated at the "achieves standards" level. Doub had in excess of twenty (20) days of accumulated leave credits available for use at the time of his separation from employment with the Department. On June 4, 1989, Officer Doub was arrested by the Hardee County Sheriff's Department on the charge of sexual battery. Doub was taken to the Hardee County Jail where he was confined until he could post appropriate bail. Doub was scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on June 4, 1989. On June 4, 1989, DeSoto Correctional Institution, specifically Lieutenant James Jacobs, was notified by Sergeant J. Krell of the Hardee County Sheriff's Department of Doub's arrest, the charges pending against him and his confinement at the Hardee County Hail pending the posting of appropriate bail. Lieutenant Jacobs is Officer Doub's immediate supervisor. This contact was not initiated at Officer's Doub's request. Officer Doub was aware the Sheriff's Department had notified the Institution of his whereabouts and situation. Doub did not contact the Institution in order to specifically request that he be granted leave pending his release from jail. On June 12, 1989, Officer Doub was released from the Hardee County Jail after posting bail. On the same date, he received the letter of abandonment from DeSoto Correctional Institution. On June 12, 1989, Officer Doub contacted DeSoto Correctional Institution seeking permission to return to work. This requested [sic] was denied based on the letter of abandonment. Thereafter, Doub filed a request for review of the decision of the Institution finding him to have abandoned his position. The criminal charge of sexual battery pending against Officer Doub was withdrawn by the State Attorney of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hardee County, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be reinstated as a Correctional Officer I, as he did not abandon his position within the Career Service System for three consecutive workdays. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene "Hal" Johnson, Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Perri King, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Ms. Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Prior to her termination on July 18, 1983, petitioner, Pacharee K. Hasper, was a member of the Senior Management Service employed as Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis with the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Employment Security. She held this position for approximately one and a half years and her managerial effectiveness rating was "outstanding". In December of 1982, petitioner's request for maternity leave without pay from March 14, 1983 through July 15, 1983 was approved by her then Division Director, Katie Tucker. By letter dated February 28, 1983, Ronald Villella, the new Division Director, advised petitioner that her request for maternity leave was confirmed and that "we will search for a suitable position to which you can be appointed upon completion of the leave period. If successful, you will be returned from leave of absence to the new assignment. If a suitable position cannot be located, you will be returned from leave of absence for one workday and then separated from the Senior Management Service in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12. To avoid any unauthorized overlap in the Chief of Research and Analysis position, should you require use of sick leave during the maternity leave, we are requesting Secretary Orr to authorize a 30-day overlap in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.06(A) and Chapter 22K-9 F.A.C." Director Villella had previously told petitioner that he needed her position for a person who had helped with the Governor's campaign. When petitioner returned to work from her maternity leave on Monday, July 18, 1983, she was not permitted to go to her prior office and was told that she would be terminated at the end of that day. Thereafter, she received a letter dated July 18, 1983, from Director Villella, reading in pertinent part as follows: "We have not been successful in locating a suitable position to which you could he appointed upon the expiration of your leave of absence. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of my letter to you dated February 28, 1983 (copy enclosed), you will be separated from the Senior Management Service in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12, F.A.C., effective 5:00 p.m. July 18, 1983. By copy of this letter, I am requesting our personnel officer to pay you for any unused annual leave in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12, F.A.C." Petitioner has filed a petition with the Department of Labor and Employment Security requesting a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and seeking reinstatement to her position as Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis with back pay and interest.
