The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, was in error in refusing to allow the Petitioner, John S. Forster, Jr., a/k/a John S. Forster to repay his contributions to the Florida Retirement Systems after he had requested and been granted a refund of his contributions made to the Florida Retirement Systems.
Findings Of Fact John S. Forster, Jr. applied for a job with the University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida. That application was under the name John S. Forster. He was given employment by the University and commenced the job. His position was as Store Keeper II. That job involved the receiving and distribution of incoming materials which the University was purchasing. Sometime in the middle to late part of February, 1976 the Petitioner suffered an injury in his employment and was required to be away from his work. During the course of the treatment of the Petitioner and subsequent contact by the employer, it was discovered that the Petitioner had on several occasions given false answers on his employment applications and medical questionnaires. Specifically, in answering questions propounded to him about former serious illness or operations, he had answered in the negative when in fact he had had a back condition which required surgery. This finding is borne out by the Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, admitted into evidence, which are employment questionnaires and medical questionnaires completed by the petitioner. After the discovery of the false answers and subsequent to the Petitioner having been away from his employment for an extended period of time, a decision was made to terminate the Petitioner from his employment with the University of North Florida. Upon receiving the notice of termination the Petitioner had no further contact with the University of North Florida and did not attend any form of exit interview, as is the policy of the University. However, prior to his employment, the University had given an orientation session in which he was made familiar with the right that he had under the Florida Retirement Systems, to include the distribution of certain brochures of information. It is not clear how the Petitioner obtained the form, but he did obtain a form which is a form utilized for requesting refund of contributions to the Florida Retirement Systems. This form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The form was completed in its entirety by the Petitioner, with the exception of the portions which are to be completed by the last Florida employer. The portions to be completed by the Florida employer were not completed. effectively what the form did was to instruct the, Petitioner that his application for refund would waive, for him, his heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. This waiver constitutes a waiver in law on the question of any rights the Petitioner, his heirs and assignees would have under the Florida Retirement Systems. The waiver becomes significant because the Petitioner went to a social security office and discovered that he would possibly be entitled to certain benefits due to the injury he suffered on the job with the University of North Florida, and those benefits would accrue to the Petitioner as a member of the Florida Retirement Systems. Notwithstanding that possible right to recovery, the Petitioner may not recover any compensation from the Florida Retirement Systems, due to his voluntary withdrawal from the Florida Retirement Systems by his refund request dated May 7, 1976. This withdrawal was made without coercion and without the knowledge of the University of North Florida and without the responsibility on the Dart of the University of North Florida or the Florida Division of Retirement to give any instructions on the implications of such a refund being granted. The Petitioner now has received his contributions from the Florida Retirement Systems and is not entitled to further relief as petitioned for.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, John S. Forster, Jr. also known as John S. Forster, be denied any right to repay his contributions into the Florida Retirement Systems as a means to receiving compensation on the injury received while employed by the University of North Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Forster, Jr. 11615 Jonathan Road Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Petitioner forfeits his rights to benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact On May 5, 2011, Petitioner was mayor of North Miami Beach, Florida. During Petitioner’s employment as mayor with North Miami Beach, he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. On or about October 17, 2012, Petitioner was charged by Information with nine criminal counts in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. On February 24, 2016, pursuant to a written Plea Agreement, Rosner entered a plea of guilty to Count 11/ Unlawful Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behavior, in violation of section 838.016(2), in Eleventh Circuit case F12023663. That same day in the Eleventh Circuit case F12023663, Judge Martin Bidwill issued the following orders: an Order Ratifying Terms of Plea Agreement; a Disposition Order specifying Rosner’s plea to Count 1 Unlawful Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behavior; and a Finding of Guilt Order to Count 1 Compensation [or] Reward for Official Behav[ior]/Influence. The October 17, 2012, Information detailed the factual basis of Rosner’s plea and conviction in Count 1.2/ Petitioner illegally received unpaid campaign advertising from Martin Outdoor Media, which had a continuing contract with the City of North Miami Beach while Petitioner served as mayor. Count 1 provides in relevant part, the following: COUNT 1 MYRON JOEL ROSNER, on or about May 5, 2011, in the County and State aforesaid, being a public servant to wit: MAYOR OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH did unlawfully, feloniously, and corruptly request, solicit, accept, or agree to accept any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law, to wit; UNPAID CAMPAIGN ADS, for the past, future, or future exertion of any influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which said public servant represented as being within the official discretion of a public servant, to wit: CONTINUE ALL MARTIN OUTDOOR MEDIA CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, in violation of s. 838.016(2), Fla. Stat., contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.3/ Rosner was notified by certified letter dated April 20, 2016, of the Division's proposed action to forfeit his Florida Retirement System rights and benefits pursuant to sections 112.3173 and 121.091(5)(f). The notice provided the following basis for the proposed action: . . . . as a result of your guilty plea in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, for acts committed in connection with your employment with the City of North Miami Beach. Specifically, on or about October 18, 2012, in Case Number F12-023663 (2012-CF_023663), you were charged by information, in relevant part, with unlawful compensation or award for official behavior, a second degree felony in violation of section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes, based on conduct which occurred on or about May 5, 2011. On or about February 24, 2016, you entered a guilty plea for one count of unlawful compensation or award for official behavior, a second degree felony in violation of section 838.016(2), Florida Statutes, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. By Petition dated May 9, 2016, Rosner contested the Notice and challenged the forfeiture.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of a specified offense committed prior to retirement pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his Florida Retirement System rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 15th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be presumed, pursuant to Rules 22A- 7.0l0(2)(a) and 22A-8.002(5)(a)3 F.A.C. to have abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner started working for Florida State Hospital, a residential facility owned and operated by HRS, on August 8, 1986. On June 22, 1987, Petitioner was assigned to Unit 14, at Florida State Hospital, a unit which treated geriatric mentally ill patients. In that assignment, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor Shirley Greggly. It is an established policy at the HRS facility in question for employees who will be absent to notify their supervisors as soon as possible when they know they will be absent. During her employment, Petitioner had received printed copies of this general policy and of the State rules governing the presumption of abandonment of position in cases where an employee is on unexcused leave for three consecutive workdays. During her employment, Petitioner had been a less-than-exemplary employee with regard to absenteeism, tardiness and timely notification and had been counselled prior to April 1989 that she should make contact with the Hospital within seven minutes of the time she was due on shift if an absence was necessary. Only after review of such contact initiated by an employee can a superior determine to approve or disapprove the requested leave. If no contact were initiated by the employee, it was Ms. Greggly's standard procedure to attempt to initiate contact herself with the missing employee. Failure of an employee to notify Ms. Greggly or delayed notification of Ms. Greggly by an employee creates great hardship for the patients who may receive delayed care as a result, and also it creates considerable administrative turmoil for Ms. Greggly in rounding up a substitute employee. Petitioner had been disciplined with a ten-day suspension in September 1988 for failure to notify. She had received a prior written reprimand for absence without authorized leave in June 1988 and an oral reprimand for excessive absenteeism in December 1987. Petitioner had been frequently counselled in regard to these shortcomings. During the first few months of 1989, Petitioner was absent from work due to a work-related injury and, if not already filed, a workers' compensation claim pursuant to Chapter 440 F.S. was at least imminent. Petitioner's primary treating physician was Daniel Bontrager, D.C. By April 1989, Dr. Bontrager had determined that Petitioner could return to light duty work. On April 7, 1989 and again on April 13, 1989, Dr. Bontrager orally informed Petitioner that she could return to light duty work as of April 17, 1989. On April 13, 1989, Ms. Hobbs stated that she would not return to work. Dr. Bontrager communicated his advice to the Hospital. The best diagnostic evidence obtainable by Dr. Bontrager indicated that there was no valid medical reason why Petitioner could not return to work. Ms. Greggly expected Petitioner back at work on April 17, 1989. From that date until April 28, 1989, when Petitioner was deemed to have abandoned her position, Petitioner initiated no contact with her employer or Ms. Greggly, and therefore no leave was authorized for her. On the dates between April 17, 1989 and April 28, 1989, inclusive, Petitioner neither appeared at work nor informed the hospital that she was going to be absent. This period constitutes in excess of three consecutive workdays of absence without approved leave.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order ratifying its previous presumption that Petitioner has abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 4th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: None filed. Respondent' PFOF: 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14 Accepted. 4-5 Immaterial. 6-7, 9 Accepted as modified; unnecessary argument and detail is rejected as such. 11 Modified to reflect the record; rejected where it is not true to the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ms. Clara Hobbs Route l, Box 186B Sneads, Florida 32460 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4082 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue At issue is whether respondent's motion for summary recommended order should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of April, 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner transferred to the Florida Retirement System (FRS) Investment Plan from the FRS Pension Plan, pursuant to section 121.4501, Florida Statutes (2012).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 32-year-old former employee of the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner was employed as a correctional officer at the Northwest Florida Reception Center in Washington County, Florida from June 14, 2004, until he resigned on July 23, 2012. Petitioner is a fully vested member of the State of Florida Retirement System (FRS). Respondent, State Board of Administration, is the agency with the duty and responsibility to administer the State of Florida Retirement System Investment Plan. See § 121.4501(8), Fla. Stat. In mid-2011, Petitioner decided to look for other employment and began researching his retirement options. Petitioner discovered he needed to be employed by the State for six years to be fully vested in the FRS and have the option to transfer from the FRS Pension Plan (a defined benefit plan) to the FRS Investment Plan (a defined contribution plan). Sometime between May 1 and 10, 2012, Petitioner accessed the FRS website, either downloaded or printed the FRS “second election form” –- the paperwork required to transfer his retirement account to the Investment Plan -- and completed the form. Although Petitioner does not remember the exact date, Petitioner approached Ms. Charity Pleas, Secretary Specialist for the Chief of Security, and asked her to file his second election form for him by facsimile transmission (fax). Ms. Pleas testified she faxed the document to the number on the form. Petitioner observed Ms. Pleas place the paperwork into the fax machine, dial a fax number, complete the fax transmission, and retrieve a fax transmission confirmation report. Ms. Pleas handed the confirmation report to Petitioner. Petitioner cannot be certain what became of the confirmation report or his original second election form. Petitioner did not contact anyone with the Florida Retirement System to confirm receipt of his second election form. Ms. Pleas often sends faxes on behalf of employees at the Reception Center where she has been employed since 2007. Ms. Pleas occasionally receives complaints from employees that a fax she has sent on their behalf was not received by the other party. Sometimes this happens despite the fact that she has received a fax confirmation report. Petitioner began employment in the private sector with Power South on July 30, 2012. In early August 2012, Petitioner contacted the FRS to find out if the retirement funds were available to move into a 401K account with his new employer. He spoke with someone named “Jason” who said there was no record of a second election having been made by Petitioner. An investigation ensued. Aon Hewitt is the Plan Choice Administrator for the FRS Investment Plan. Aon Hewitt provides services to the SBA in connection with the Investment Plan, including processing enrollments and second elections. Lynette Murphy is Benefits Operations Manager for Hewitt Associates, LLC, a division of Aon Hewitt. Ms. Murphy researched the issue of whether Petitioner’s second election form was received by Aon Hewitt. She conducted several searches of the company’s files, including a search by Petitioner’s name (both first and last names) and social security number. In case the second election form had been received without a member name or social security number, Ms. Murphy also conducted a search on the numbers “99” and “90,” the codes assigned to forms received which are unidentifiable. Ms. Murphy’s search included not only forms received between April 1, 2012 and July 30, 2012, but also all dates covering the life of Petitioner’s eligibility and enrollment in the FRS. Ms. Murphy was unable to find any record of a second election form filed by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration enter a final order denying the relief requested in Petitioner’s Petition for Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this <day> day of <month>, <year>, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 <day> day of <month>, <year>.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Petitioner abandoned an employment position with the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, and whether she was properly separated from employment with the Commission based upon abandonment. Petitioner contends that her failure to report for work with the Commission did not constitute an abandonment because the Commission's offer of employment was presented in such a manner as to make it impossible for the Petitioner to appear for work. The Commission contends that the Petitioner failed to report for work with the Commission for three consecutive workdays, that her failure to report was not authorized, and that she therefore abandoned her position with the Commission.
Findings Of Fact Prior to 1980, Petitioner had been employed with the Florida Parole and Probation Commission at its Pensacola office as a Parole Agent. Her employment was terminated, and she pursued a proceeding before the Florida Career Service Commission. The Career Service Commission ordered that the Parole and Probation Commission reinstate her to her former position and that she receive back pay and benefits. The Petitioner had moved to Tallahassee, and the Commission sought to accommodate her by offering her a position in Tallahassee. There were no immediate vacancies. The Petitioner was offered a position as Administrative Assistant to the Chairperson of the Commission. The position was at a lower pay grade than Petitioner had been in, and she declined the position. The Commission considered itself to be under an obligation to place Petitioner in a position similar to the one she had held previously. The 1980 session of the Florida Legislature authorized ten new positions to the Commission. Although the effective date of the authorization was July 1, 1980, the positions were only funded to commence in October, 1980, and to run through the remainder of the fiscal year. The Commission concluded that an emergency existed for filling two of the authorized positions. The Commission decided to take steps to fill a "Parole Examiner I" position and, a "Revocation Specialist" position immediately, rather than to wait until October In order to accommodate the immediate filling of those positions, the filling of other newly authorized positions would be delayed until subsequent to October. The Commission advertised for the Parole Examiner I and Revocation Specialist, positions by Job Opportunity Announcements dated July 7, 1980. The application deadline was July 18, 1980. These were the first professional level vacancies that the Commission had had in its staff other than the Administrative Assistant position since the time that the Career Service Commission ordered that Petitioner be reinstated. Commission personnel commenced to interview qualified applicants after July 18. At some point, consideration was given to offering one or both of the positions to the Petitioner. Commission personnel contacted Petitioner on July 28, 1980, and offered her the Parole Examiner I position. Petitioner was also advised that she could be considered for the Revocation Specialist position, which was at a higher pay grade than the position that Petitioner previously held. A letter confirming this was sent by the Commission to the Petitioner. The letter was dated July 28, 1980. By letter dated August 1, Petitioner stated that she would like to be considered for the Revocation Specialist position. On Wednesday, August 6, 1980, the Commission's Personnel Manager advised Petitioner that she was being offered the Revocation Specialist position and that she would be expected to report to her supervisor the following Monday, August 11, 1980, at 8:00 A.M. A letter confirming the offer and the conditions, dated August 6, 1980, was delivered to Petitioner by hand delivery on August 7. These letters formally confirmed conversations that had taken place among Petitioner and various employees of the Commission. On August 8, 1980, the Petitioner contacted the Commission's Personnel Manager and expressed a desire to take annual leave so that she could report to work in the new position subsequent to August 11. The Personnel Manager informed Petitioner that she would need to make her leave request directly to Harry P. Dodd, the Commission's Revocation Administrator, who would be Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was able to contact Mr. Dodd in Starke, Florida, where he was performing Commission duties. She initially indicated that she would like to take two weeks' annual leave commencing on August 11. During the conversation, she scaled this request down to three days. Mr. Dodd was unclear as to the extent of his authority to grant or deny the leave request. He contacted the Commission's Personnel Manager and legal counsel and was advised that the decision of whether to grant or deny the leave request should be made by Mr. Dodd as a management decision. Mr. Dodd concluded that the leave request should be denied, and he contacted the Petitioner by telephone and advised her of that. Petitioner did not at that time advise Mr. Dodd that she would not report for work on August 11. By letter dated August 8, 1980, Petitioner advised the Chairperson of the Commission that she would not be able to report on August 11. She did not state her intentions to report at any future date. Petitioner did not report for work on August 11, 12, or 13, 1980. By letter dated August 13, the Commission advised Petitioner that it regarded her failure to report on August 11 as a refusal of the position. Thereafter, by letter dated October 15, 1980, the Commission advised Petitioner that if she were considered an employee rather than a prospective employee in view of the Career Service Commission's reinstatement order, that she had been absent without authorized leave for three days, and deemed to have abandoned her position. She was advised of her right to seek review of that decision through a petition to the Department of Administration. Petitioner filed such a petition, and this proceeding ensued. During July and August, 1980, the petitioner was employed on a part- time basis with the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tallahassee. Petitioner did not take any steps to advise anyone at her office as to the possibility of her accepting a position with the Parole and Probation Commission. While Petitioner testified that it would have been appropriate for her to give at least two weeks' notice before leaving the Federal Public Defender's Office, it does not appear from the evidence that her failure to give such notice would have unduly burdened her employer. Furthermore, if Petitioner had immediately advised her employer when she became aware that she may obtain full-time employment with the Commission, adequate notice could have been given. Petitioner and her husband had planned a vacation for August 11 and 12, 1980. While reporting to work on August 11 would have frustrated those plans, it does not appear that Petitioner would have incurred any significant expense or unhappiness from frustration of the vacation plans other than disappointment. It would have been difficult for the Petitioner to make arrangements for day care for her children in order to report for full-time employment with the Commission on August 11. It does not appear that those difficulties were insurmountable, however, and Petitioner could, albeit with difficulty, have made such arrangements. It was not impossible for the Petitioner to report for work with the Commission on August 11, 1980. The Commission's Revocations Section was severely understaffed during the summer of 1980. Legislation had been enacted which dramatically increased the number of parole revocations, and the Commission's staff had not been increased to handle the increase. During July and August, the Revocations Section had a severe backlog. It is for this reason that the Commission decided to take immediate steps to fill a newly authorized Revocation Specialist position. In addition to the increased workload and backlog, the Revocations Section had some peculiar personnel difficulties which increased the need to immediately fill the newly authorized position. One of the Revocation Specialists was seriously ill and frequently absent. Another was scheduled for military leave, which was not discretionary. Mr. Dodd had made plans to be on annual leave which could not be changed because he was using the leave to close a real estate transaction. In view of these difficulties, Mr. Dodd's refusal to grant the Petitioner's annual leave request was justified. It does not appear that the refusal of the leave request was made on any basis other than a sound management decision. After the Petitioner failed to report for work by August 13, the Commission took immediate steps to fill the Revocation Specialist position. While there were unexplained delays in accomplishing that, the position was filled effective August 26, 1980. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Commission's offer of the Revocation Specialist position to the Petitioner was other than a bona fide offer. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that any of the persons involved in offering the position to Petitioner felt any ill will toward her. The denial of the Petitioner's request that she not be required to report on August 11, as she had been directed, was based on a sound management decision. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the denial was generated by any ill feeling toward Petitioner or any desire that she not take the position. Taking the position on such short notice undoubtedly would have caused the Petitioner some inconvenience in leaving the position that she had held with the Federal Public Defender's Office and arranging child care. The frustration of vacation plans would have been disappointing. These factors do not, however, justify the Petitioner's failure to report as directed, nor could it be concluded that it was impossible for the Petitioner to report as directed. In view of the fact that the petitioner was offered the Revocation Specialist position in order that the Commission could comply with its responsibility to reinstate the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner was receiving back pay from the Commission, the Petitioner should be viewed as having been employed by the Commission. Her failure to report for work for three consecutive days as she had been directed to do constitutes an abandonment of her position with the Commission.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 1st day of March, 2006.
