Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the. Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee, Florida in 1968 and since March, 1971 has been evaluated by his supervisors as conditional or unsatisfactory in dependability. These low marks in dependability stem directly from his absenteeism rather than from his calibre of work when on duty. Petitioner is employed as a psychiatric aide. On October 31, 1972 Petitioner received his first written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. On March 22, 1973 a second written reprimand was received by Petitioner for excessive absenteeism. From August 1974 to May 1975 Petitioner was granted leave of absence to attend a vocational school. Upon his return to work at the hospital he was assigned to the 3:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. shift. In August 1975 Petitioner was assigned to night duty at his own request and over the objection of the night duty supervisor whose objections were based solely on Petitioner's prior record of absenteeism. Between the months of September 1975 to August 1976 Petitioner was absent a total of 64 1/2 days of the days he was required to be on duty. On July 13, 1976 Petitioner was given a third written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. On each of the occasions Petitioner was absent he would call in one or two hours prior to the time he was scheduled to report for duty to advise that he or a member of his family was sick. At this time of night it was often impossible for the hospital to get a replacement for him, and, as a result, the ward was short of attendants. Following the July 13, 1976 written reprimand Petitioner called in sick on July 25, July 31, and August 1, 1976. In approximately 95 percent of the cases Petitioner's absences occurred the day prior or subsequent to his scheduled off-duty days. During the six months period prior to his suspension from duty for three days without pay the ward to which Petitioner was assigned was a surgical ward where most patients required more intensive care than on non-surgical wards. While on duty Petitioner is an effective and capable employee and his efficiency reports so indicate. HRS Employee Handbook (Exhibit 1) provides penalties for various offenses. For the first offense of excessive absenteeism oral to written reprimand is recommended. For a second such offense penalty of written reprimand to three days suspension is recommended. For a third such offense three days suspension to dismissal is recommended. For a fourth such offense dismissal is recommended. Testifying in his own behalf Petitioner acknowledged excessive absenteeism and gave as a reason that he was subject to headaches, and, that when he didn't feel good he would stay home rather than come to work and have to listen to the complaints of his fellow workers. During the past year Petitioner has been employed by Gadsden County School Board as a bus driver. While so employed he missed only one day due to sickness.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, A-1 Block Corp., discriminated against Petitioner, Harold E. Ford, Jr., on the basis of his race and/or color and in retaliation, and, if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a family-owned business that manufactures concrete products, ready-mix concrete, concrete block, and precast concrete. Mr. Freeman has been the president of Respondent for approximately 10 years. Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent at two different times. Petitioner was hired to work in several different capacities which included: ready-mix driver; block driver; dump truck driver; and/or loader operator. Mr. Caviglia serves Respondent in a supervisory position, and Mr. Caviglia made the decision to hire Petitioner as a truck driver in December 2009 (first employment). Respondent hired Petitioner at $12.00 an hour. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment in July 2011 (first employment termination). Mr. Freeman described the circumstances under which Petitioner was terminated as: Petitioner failed to unhook some type of ladder or other apparatus at a self-loading dock, and drove off causing approximately $4,000 to $5,000 of damage to Respondent’s truck and/or the dock. Respondent was responsible for making the repairs. At the time of his first employment termination, Petitioner was making $13.00 an hour. Approximately five months later, in December 2011, Mr. Caviglia re-hired Petitioner to be a truck driver for Respondent. The other drivers employed by Respondent wanted Petitioner to return. Petitioner was hired at $13.00 an hour (second employment). At various times during Petitioner’s employment with Respondent, Petitioner inquired about becoming a “dispatcher” for Respondent. Mr. Freeman indicated to Petitioner that he (Mr. Freeman) would think about Petitioner’s dispatcher request. However, one of the requirements for Respondent’s dispatcher position was the availability to work on Saturdays. Mr. Freeman knew that Petitioner had a second job which required Petitioner to work on Saturdays. Since 2004, Petitioner worked part-time as an attendant at a local funeral home, which required Petitioner to work some Saturdays. Petitioner was paid $75 per funeral; however, he did not know how much he had been paid since his second employment termination. Petitioner did not have any pay-stubs to reflect how much he had been paid by the funeral home. Petitioner continues to work for the funeral home. In October 2013, Petitioner caused damage to tires on a truck belonging to Respondent. Respondent incurred a financial loss as a result of the damaged tires. Petitioner was terminated from his second employment with Respondent on November 20, 2013. Petitioner alleged and testified that Mr. Caviglia threatened Petitioner at various times during Respondent’s operational meetings.3/ Two other witnesses, Mr. Timmons and Mr. Sandy, testified that they did not observe Petitioner being threatened at these meetings. Petitioner alleged that he was retaliated against based on his race. Petitioner claimed that he was directed to wash a white man’s truck. Petitioner refused to wash the truck. Respondent requires its drivers to wash the trucks that they drive each day. However, there was no evidence of any retaliation against Petitioner when he did not wash the other man’s truck. Petitioner alleged he asked for raises when he thought it appropriate, and was refused. Mr. Freeman paid his employees the going rate, and it was established that Petitioner was being paid $14 an hour when he was terminated. Mr. Timmons, a former employee of Respondent, received the same rate of pay for working as a driver or as a dispatcher for Respondent. Petitioner’s resumé was admitted into evidence as Exhibit C. Petitioner created this resumé in 2011, and revised it one time to assist in the preparation for the hearing. The resumé does not accurately reflect Petitioner’s separate employment periods at Respondent, nor does it contain a two-week period of employment at another construction company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations DISMISSING the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Ford. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed May 28, 1986, Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) charged that Respondent, Theodore Riley (Riley), while employed as an adjuster by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Group, (USF&G), did wrongfully obtain the sum of $400 from a workmens compensation claimant to assure that USF&G would not contest the claim (Count I). The complaint further alleged that on September 16, 1985, Riley entered a plea of nolo contendere to an information charging a violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, a felony of the second degree and a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the court withheld adjudication and placed Riley on 18 months probation (Count II). The Department concluded that such conduct demonstrated, inter alia, a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance; fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or permit; and, a plea of nolo contendere to a felony involving moral turpitude. Section 626.611(7),(9) and (14), Florida Statutes. At hearing, Riley entered a plea of no contest to Count II of the Administrative Complaint in exchange for the Department's dismissal of Count I of the Administrative Complaint and the Department's agreement that the penalty imposed would be limited to a suspension of his eligibility for licensure for a period of two (2) years. While not conditioning his agreement to a two year suspension, Riley did request that the Department consider crediting the time he has been on probation against the two year suspension. The evidence shows that Riley was arrested and charged with the subject offense in March 1985, that he entered a plea of nolo contendere, that adjudication of guilt was withheld, and that he was placed on probation for 18 months commencing September 16, 1985. As a special condition of probation, Riley was ordered not to apply for an adjuster's license during the term of his probationary period. Consistent with the terms of his probation, Riley has not renewed his adjusters' license. The Department's records reflect that Riley's license was last due for renewal, but not renewed, on April 1, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since April 30, 1982, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds certificate number 08-82-002- 01. Respondent is now, and has been since early 1982, employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as the "FHP"). He currently holds the rank of sergeant, a rank he has held since 1986, with the exception of a brief period of time in 1990 when he served as a lieutenant. As a sergeant, Respondent is responsible, on a regular basis, for the direct supervision of eight troopers. There are occasions, however, when as many as 40 troopers are under his supervision. During the time that he has been with the FHP, Respondent has received numerous commendations and his overall work performance has been rated as either satisfactory or above. Only twice during the period of his employment has he been disciplined- - in 1983, for the negligent operation of his FHP vehicle, for which he received a written reprimand, and, more recently, for the incidents which gave rise to the issuance of the instant Amended Administrative Complaint. These incidents all occurred during the time Respondent held the rank of lieutenant. Respondent was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the investigative section of the FHP's Troop "E" in Miami on or about February 1, 1990. His duties included working out of uniform (in civilian clothes) investigating driver's license fraud. Among the other investigative lieutenants assigned to Troop "E" with whom Respondent worked were Lieutenants Jimmy Hobbie, Paul Sharpe and Kenneth Glass. Respondent shared an office with Lieutenant Hobbie. They each had their own desk. Lieutenants Sharpe and Glass occupied other nearby offices. Respondent enjoyed a congenial, professional relationship with his fellow investigative lieutenants. At no time did he ever have an exchange of angry or threatening words with them. On at least three separate occasions between February 19, 1990 and April 15, 1990, while in his office and in the presence of Lieutenants Hobbie and Sharpe, with whom, at the time, he was engaged in casual, light conversation injected with attempts at humor, Respondent removed his .38 caliber FHP-issued service revolver from his holster, placed it near the side of his head, pulled the hammer partially back, and, without firing any shots, returned the revolver to his holster. On none of these occasions did Respondent intend to harm or threaten anyone. He was simply trying to be funny. Neither Hobbie nor Sharpe, however, were amused by Respondent's careless and potentially dangerous display of his firearm. 1/ To the contrary, they were troubled by Respondent's actions, but they did not express their concerns to Respondent. On March 30, 1990, Respondent displayed a firearm in arresting an individual named Mark Barken for driver's license fraud. Prior to locating and arresting Barken, Respondent had been told by Barken's brother that Barken was a heroin addict and that Barken had recently threatened the brother with a shotgun and told the brother that he was going to kill him and his wife. Based upon the information he had been provided by the brother, Respondent considered Barken to be an unstable, dangerous and violent individual. Therefore, when he received a tip that Barken was at a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility in Perrine, he asked Lieutenant Hobbie to accompany him to the facility to assist in arresting Barken. Hobbie agreed to provide such backup support. Respondent and Lieutenant Hobbie drove to Perrine and waited together outside the facility for Barken to leave. After a while, Respondent left the surveillance area for brief moment. When he returned, Hobbie advised him that Barken, or at least someone who looked like Barken, had just left the facility. Respondent thereupon got into his FHP vehicle and drove off in the direction Hobbie had told him Barken was headed. Hobbie remained behind in the surveillance area. Shortly thereafter Respondent spotted Barken, who was with a companion. As Respondent approached the two, they ran across the street into a parking lot. Respondent followed them. As he pulled into the lot, he identified himself as a law enforcement officer 2/ and ordered Barken and his companion to stop, turn around and face him with their hands up. The pair stopped, but they did not comply with Respondent's other directives, even after these directives had been given several times. Believing that it would be prudent to do so, Respondent took a shotgun with him as he exited the vehicle and initially held it in a port-arms position in an effort to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, Respondent did gain control of the situation. When Lieutenant Hobbie arrived on the scene, Barken and his companion were laying face down on the pavement and Respondent was pointing a shotgun in their direction. 3/ Following Hobbie's arrival, Respondent placed the shotgun back in his vehicle and Barken and his companion were taken into custody. On or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, while seated at his desk in the office he shared with Lieutenant Hobbie, Respondent jokingly pointed his revolver out the open doorway of the office and in the direction of a reception area. As he did so, he commented to Hobbie, who was in the office with him, "Wonder what he would do if he would, you know, look up and see me pointing this gun at him." From where he was situated, Hobbie was unable to see the person to whom Respondent was referring. After making this comment, Respondent put the gun back in his holster. At around lunchtime, on or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, Respondent walked into Lieutenant Sharpe's office and the two began to engage in a friendly conversation. Their discussion centered upon their plans for lunch. During the conversation, Respondent was standing immediately in front of the desk at which Sharpe was seated. At some point in their discussion, Respondent decided that he needed to tuck his shirt in his pants. Before loosening his pants, he unholstered his service revolver and laid the revolver on Sharpe's desk. As Respondent placed the revolver on the desk, he carelessly pointed the barrel of the gun in Sharpe's direction and pulled the hammer partially back. Sharpe reacted by quickly changing his position to avoid being in the line of fire in the event the revolver discharged. Respondent saw Sharpe's reaction. He immediately removed the revolver from the desk and placed it back in his holster without bothering to tuck in his shirt. Although concerned about this incident, Lieutenant Sharpe did not discuss his concerns with Respondent; 4/ however, he did report the incident shortly after it had occurred to Randy Snow, who was his, as well as Respondent's, immediate supervisor. 5/ On April 25, 1990, Respondent and Lieutenants Hobbie, Sharpe and Glass were standing in close proximity to one another in the secretarial area of Troop "E" headquarters and engaged in informal and friendly conversation when Respondent, in response to a remark make by Hobbie and in an effort to be humorous, removed his service revolver from his holster, pointed it at Hobbie's head and pulled the hammer partially back. Hobbie turned his head to the side and ducked. Glass threw his hands up and exclaimed, "That's loaded," in response to which Respondent stated, "I know it is." Respondent then put the revolver back in his holster. At the time of this April 25, 1990, incident, an internal investigation of Respondent's conduct was already underway. During the course of the investigation, Respondent, who had not yet completed his probationary period as a lieutenant, was returned to the rank of sergeant and placed on "administrative duty." Following the conclusion of the investigation, Respondent was dismissed by the FHP on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The FHP subsequently determined that it did not have just cause to dismiss Respondent for fitness deficiencies. Accordingly, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Respondent, it rescinded Respondent's dismissal and instead suspended Respondent for ten days without pay for the improper display of a weapon. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, Respondent successfully participated in the FHP's Employee Assistance Program. He also took a firearms retraining course, which he also successfully completed. Since Respondent's return to work, his overall work performance has been rated as exceeding performance standards and he has received a letter of commendation from his supervisor. There have not been any reoccurrences of the improper conduct for which he was suspended. Apparently, he has mended his ways. He is today considered to be an effective, hard working and honest law enforcement officer who is an asset to the FHP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, by virtue of his having engaged in the conduct described in Findings of Fact 10, 18, 19 and 21 of this Recommended Order, and (2) issuing him a written reprimand and placing him on probation for a period of two years, during which time he shall be required to undergo firearms training and meet any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of April, 1993.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be exempt from disqualification from employment in a position of trust, pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency is the state entity which supports vulnerable persons with various developmental disabilities. The Agency contracts with direct service providers and is responsible for regulating the employment of persons serving in positions of trust with these providers. The ARC of Martin County, Inc. (the ARC), is a service provider for the Agency. Ms. Ford applied with the ARC to become an after-school counselor, a position of trust which requires completion of level 2 background screening. The Department of Children and Families conducts initial screening on behalf of the Agency. Background screening and local criminal records revealed a history of involvement with law enforcement, as Ms. Ford admitted in her exemption request paperwork and her testimony at hearing, summarized below. On September 30, 2011, Ms. Ford entered a plea of guilty to forgery, driving on a suspended license, and providing a false name to law enforcement, for events that took place on April 9, 2010. Forgery, a felony of the third degree, is a disqualifying offense for employment in a position of trust. She was ordered to pay court fees and costs, and was put on probation for a period of 18 months for that offense. In her responses in the Exemption Questionnaire, Ms. Ford gave few details as to the events surrounding the disqualifying offense itself. She stated only that she was a witness to an accident on March 20, 2011, almost a year after the forgery incident, and, after identifying herself to the police, was arrested on an outstanding warrant from Martin County for the forgery charge. Ms. Ford wrote in her own words:2/ The forgery was do to traffic when I was pulled over and I gave my sister name to the officer. The officer then allowed me to go to go. I didn't know I had a warrant for Martin County until the night of the crash. In response to inquiries concerning another arrest for driving with a suspended license and providing a false name to a law enforcement officer while being arrested or detained a couple of months later on May 9, 2011, Ms. Ford wrote: I was on my to work and I was running late so I then was doing over milage and I was pulled over and gave officer a other name, cause I didn't want to be late for work. At hearing, in response to inquiries concerning her arrest for shoplifting on January 22, 2013, Ms. Ford acknowledged shoplifting a medical device for her daughter from Wal-Mart. Ms. Ford completed all confinement, supervision, and nonmonetary conditions imposed by the court for her disqualifying offense by March 29, 2013. Mr. Gerry Driscoll is the regional operations manager for the Southeast Region of the Agency. He has served in his current position for three years and has been employed with the Agency for seventeen years. Mr. Driscoll credibly testified that the Agency has responsibility for a very vulnerable population, many of whom are unable to later tell others about the actions of their caregivers. This population is thus very susceptible to exploitation. Mr. Driscoll noted that the Agency must consider any prior criminal conduct or dishonesty very carefully. In her written submission to the Agency, Ms. Ford did not recognize that she caused any harm or injury to any victim. However, at hearing, she admitted that she caused injury to her sister when she provided and signed her sister's name to law enforcement after being detained or arrested on more than one occasion. Ms. Ford submitted three identically worded "form" character reference letters to the Agency, stating generally that she is a responsible, reliable, and honest person. The letters do not indicate the employment status or positions of the individuals signing the references. Ms. Ford further stated that she was remorseful. In her Exemption Questionnaire, Ms. Ford wrote: Yes my remorse is I accepting made bad choose in my life and I accept full responsibility for the actions that I made. I want to move forward and put the pass behind me so I can make a better future for me and my kids. Ms. Ford seems sincere in her desire to assist vulnerable persons and asks for a chance to work with them to demonstrate that she is rehabilitated. However, the statute requires that rehabilitation be shown first; only then may an exemption for disqualification be granted. While Ms. Ford stated that she is rehabilitated, she offered little evidence to clearly demonstrate that. She completed a home health aide course in 2012, but has not participated in other counseling or coursework since the disqualifying offense. Ms. Ford's recent work history includes employment as an administrative assistant with Florida Community Health Centers, Inc., from October 8, 2014, to October 5, 2015, and employment as a mental health technician with Sandy Pines Residential Treatment Center from July 18, 2008, to January 7, 2014. Passage of time is a factor to be considered in determining rehabilitation, and the last disqualifying offense was over five years ago. However, Ms. Ford's history since her disqualifying offense includes more to reflect incidents and does not contain sufficient positive indications of rehabilitation. Ms. Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated and that she will not present a danger if she is exempted from her disqualification from employment in a position of trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Ms. Jennifer Ford's application for exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 11th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident all-lines adjuster should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact DFS is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating insurance adjusters and agents pursuant to chapters 624 and 626, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 2016, Petitioner filed with DFS his application to become licensed as an all-lines adjuster in the state of Florida. On the second page of the application form, Petitioner answered “yes” to the question asking whether he has ever pled nolo contendere, no contest, or guilty to, or ever had adjudication withheld for, or ever been convicted of or found guilty of, any felony crime under the laws of any state. Despite answering yes to that question, on the third and fourth pages of the application, Petitioner answered “no” to the following three questions: First, Petitioner was asked whether his felony crime(s) fell within the following categories: any first-degree felony; a capital felony; a felony involving money laundering, fraud of any kind, or embezzlement; or a felony directly related to the financial services business. Second, Petitioner was asked whether his felony crime(s), if not falling in one of the above categories, were crimes involving moral turpitude. Lastly, Petitioner was asked whether his felony crime(s) were within the category of “all other felonies.” The questions asking how to categorize the felony crime(s) that Petitioner acknowledged on page two of the application correlate to the statute prescribing a range of consequences depending on the type of felony criminal background an applicant has. According to the statute, an applicant with felony criminal history falling in the first group above (first degree felony, etc.) is permanently barred from applying for licensure in Florida as an insurance agent or adjuster. For an applicant whose felony criminal history does not fall in the first group, but is categorized as a felony (or felonies) involving moral turpitude, the statute provides for a long period of disqualification. If an applicant’s felony criminal history does not fall in either of the first two categories, then a shorter period of disqualification is provided by the statute. See § 206.207, Fla. Stat., adopted in its current form in 2011 (with one immaterial amendment in 2014 to change a statutory cross-reference). Petitioner’s admitted felony history must, of necessity, fall within one of the three groups: the felony history must have involved one or more felonies identified for permanent bar, other felonies involving moral turpitude, and/or all other felonies. The application answers were internally inconsistent and at least one of the answers on pages three and four was wrong. At hearing, Petitioner did not offer any explanation for his incorrect answer(s).1/ Petitioner did not file with his April 2016 application submitted to DFS, and did not offer into evidence at hearing any proof of the felony criminal history to which he admitted in his application. Petitioner gave little information at all about his criminal background at hearing. He testified that he identified his prior criminal history on page two of the application (by answering “yes” to the question asking whether he had ever been convicted, etc. of any felony crimes). The only detail he was asked by his counsel to address was as follows: Q: Now the criminal history that you identified, is that something that occurred a while ago? A: Yes, sir. Q: And can you give me the approximate time period? A: The offense? It was in 1994, I believe. Q: Okay. And do you recall when you finished all your restitution and probation concerning any of these prior convictions? A: 1999. (Tr. 32). Petitioner later acknowledged on cross-examination, as suggested by his attorney’s attempted correction in his follow-up question, that there was not just one (“the”) offense--there was more than one offense and more than one conviction. Other than correcting that error, Petitioner volunteered no information regarding his prior convictions. He did, however, offer into evidence documentation generally corroborating his testimony regarding when he completed probation for his prior convictions. Two letters from New Jersey Superior Court personnel state that court records reflect that Mr. Bivona completed three different probationary terms associated with three different indictment numbers, as follows: for indictment number 96-03-0031-I, probation was completed as of August 9, 1999; for indictment number 95-10-0453-I, probation was completed as of May 2, 1999; and for indictment number 95-05-0206-I, probation was completed as of September 27, 1998. Although Petitioner offered no details or documentation for his prior felony convictions, either with his application or at hearing (other than the letters documenting when he completed probation), Petitioner said that he had previously provided documentation to Respondent regarding his felony convictions, a fact confirmed by Respondent. Respondent had in its files certified copies of court records for Petitioner’s felony convictions in New Jersey, obtained by Respondent in 2010 in connection with a prior license application by Petitioner.2/ Respondent offered into evidence at hearing certified copies of court records regarding Petitioner’s felony criminal history, including indictments issued by grand juries setting forth the original charges, and the subsequent judgments of conviction issued by New Jersey Superior Court judges. Because Respondent was willing to use the criminal history documentation previously provided by Petitioner that was already in Respondent’s files, Respondent did not require Petitioner to obtain or submit the same documentation again in connection with his new license application.3/ The indictment numbers identified in the three judgments of conviction match the three indictment numbers contained in Petitioner’s exhibit offered to prove when he completed his probationary terms for his prior convictions. Thus, although Petitioner was evasive at hearing, unwilling to identify the court records of his prior convictions, the records themselves establish the missing information about Petitioner’s felony criminal history that Petitioner only alluded to at hearing. In a September 28, 1995, judgment of conviction issued by Judge Leonard N. Arnold, New Jersey Superior Court for Somerset County, Mr. Bivona pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the charges set forth in indictment 95-05-0206-I. As enumerated in the judgment of conviction, these were: four counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, a third-degree felony; one count of unlawful theft or receipt of a credit card, a fourth-degree felony; four counts of forgery, a fourth-degree felony; and one count of theft by deception, a fourth-degree felony. For sentencing purposes, the court merged nine of the counts into count two (one of the charges for fraudulent use of a credit card), and imposed the following sentence: three years of probation, restitution of $271.60, a $500.00 fine, and other monetary assessments. On May 3, 1996, another judgment of conviction was issued by Judge Leonard N. Arnold. The judgment of conviction shows that Mr. Bivona pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the charges set forth in indictment 95-10-0453-I. As enumerated in the judgment of conviction, these were: three counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, a third-degree felony; and one count of theft, a fourth-degree felony. The sentence imposed by the judgment of conviction was incarceration for 180 days in the county jail, a three-year probationary term, restitution of $380.02, and monetary assessments. On August 9, 1996, a judgment of conviction was issued by Judge Marilyn Hess, New Jersey Superior Court for Hunterdon County. As shown on the judgment of conviction, Mr. Bivona pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the charges set forth in indictment 96-03-00031-I. As enumerated in the judgment of conviction, these were: one count of theft by deception, a third-degree felony; one count of forgery, a fourth-degree felony; and one count of credit card theft, a fourth-degree felony. The sentence imposed by the judgment of conviction was a three-year probationary term, restitution of $2,488.30, and monetary assessments. As noted, Mr. Bivona testified that he completed the probationary terms for his prior convictions in 1999. He provided documentation corroborating that he served the three probationary terms and completed them on three different dates in 1998 and 1999, the last of which was August 9, 1999. No evidence was presented to prove that Mr. Bivona has paid all restitution, fines, and other monetary assessments imposed in the three judgments of conviction, and, if so, when all payments were completed. Petitioner’s application was initially denied by DFS because of Petitioner’s felony criminal history. DFS determined that at least two of the judgments of conviction, and possibly all three, were for felony crimes involving fraud. DFS did not undertake a review of Petitioner’s rehabilitation from his past crimes or his present trustworthiness and fitness to serve as an insurance adjuster, because in DFS’s view, Petitioner was subject to the statutory permanent bar from applying for licensure. DFS did not determine that Petitioner did not otherwise meet the requirements for licensure as a resident all-lines adjuster. At hearing, neither party went into any detail regarding the requirements for licensure as an all-lines adjuster. Instead, the focus of both Petitioner and Respondent was on whether Petitioner’s criminal history renders him disqualified from applying for licensure as an adjuster, either permanently or for a period of time, and, if the latter, whether mitigating circumstances reduce the disqualifying period. No evidence was offered of aggravating circumstances. Respondent has not disputed whether, aside from the implications of Petitioner’s criminal history, Petitioner otherwise qualifies for licensure. Therefore, it is inferred that Respondent was and is satisfied that, aside from the implications of Petitioner’s criminal background (including questions about rehabilitation, trustworthiness, and fitness), Petitioner otherwise meets the requirements for licensure as an all-lines adjuster. Petitioner presented evidence addressed to the mitigating factors in Respondent’s rule to shorten the period of disqualification in certain circumstances, where there is no permanent bar. Petitioner testified that he moved to Florida with his wife in 1998 (apparently before he had completed his probationary terms for at least two of his convictions). He and his wife started a business in the Sarasota area, a corporation that has operated under two different names, but has remained essentially the same since 1998. The business has always been small; although it has gone up and down in size over the years, Petitioner said that the business has had at least five employees for over three years. Since 1998, the nature of his business has been to provide technical support and assistance to insurance adjusters. The business has not been engaged in the actual adjuster work; instead, his clients are licensed adjusters who perform the actual adjuster work. Petitioner testified that he has been employed by the corporation he owns, working at least 40 hours per week for a continuous two-year period within the five years preceding the filing of his application. This parrots one of the mitigation factors in Respondent’s rule, and although no documentation of his employment hours was provided for any period of time, the undersigned accepts Petitioner’s testimony as sufficient under the mitigation rule. If Petitioner is determined to be disqualified for a period of years and subject to the mitigation rule, this mitigation factor would reduce the disqualification period by one year. To meet another mitigation factor, Petitioner submitted five letters of recommendation in evidence. Three of those letters appear to be from someone who has known Petitioner for at least five years (one undated letter states that the author has known Petitioner for three years; another letter, more of a business reference from an insurance company representative in Maryland, does not state how long the author has known Petitioner). Those letters that are dated bear dates after the license application was submitted and initially denied, but there is no impediment to receiving and considering them in this de novo hearing. The letters meet the requirement in Respondent’s rule for mitigation. If Petitioner is determined to be disqualified for a period of years and subject to the mitigation rule, this mitigation factor would reduce the disqualification period by one year. Although the letters satisfy one of the mitigation factors in Respondent’s rule, the contents of the letters are hearsay, as none of the authors testified. The matters stated in the letters, for the most part, do not corroborate any non- hearsay evidence, except in a few immaterial respects (such as that Petitioner runs his own business and has daughters who play volleyball). Petitioner did not present any testimony from witnesses at hearing who could attest to his character, his business reputation, or his trustworthiness. Petitioner testified that he does volunteer work on a “sporadic” basis. He is active as a volunteer for his three daughters’ schools and travel volleyball activities, and he also works with youth groups in his church. Although Petitioner testified that he believes he has volunteered at least 180 hours over the three years preceding the filing of his application, Petitioner did not present any documentation from one or more charitable organizations confirming the number of his volunteer hours. It is undisputed that Petitioner held an insurance adjuster license in Florida for some period of time, until, according to DFS, the license expired by operation of law. Although Petitioner admitted that since 1998, his business has not been engaged in insurance adjuster work, merely holding a license appears to at least superficially satisfy a mitigation factor in Respondent’s rule. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner has been arrested or charged with any criminal violations since he completed his third probation in August 1999, more than 17 years ago. The length of time without any additional criminal incidents is a positive consideration. Notably lacking from Petitioner were: an explanation for the circumstances underlying the multiple crimes he committed that involved fraud, theft, forgery, and deception, through use of other people’s credit cards and checks; express acceptance of responsibility for his criminal past; the expression of genuine remorse for his wrongdoing; and an explanation as to why his criminal history should not present concerns if Petitioner becomes authorized to engage in insurance adjusting. As Petitioner acknowledged, a licensed adjuster “would negotiate settlement [of claims under insurance policies], would offer payment, [and] would have authority to write payment and receive payments” (Tr. 35), placing the adjuster in a position of trust and responsibility in dealing with other people’s money. Simply noting that it has been a good number of years since Petitioner completed his probations, that he is running his own business (that does not engage in insurance adjusting), that he has a family, that he is involved with church, and that he does volunteer work is not enough, when Petitioner’s past crimes and the concerns they present go unexplained, to support a finding of rehabilitation, moral fitness, and trustworthiness today. It may well be that Petitioner could prove these things if he had addressed them; it may have been an unfortunate strategic choice to avoid any mention of Petitioner’s past crimes in anything but the most general and vague terms. Perhaps in light of decisional law discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, Respondent’s licensure application form asks applicants who disclose criminal history whether they have had their civil rights restored. Petitioner answered yes. He was asked to explain, and his response was: “Rights were restored and I have the ability to vote and act as a standard US Citizen.” (Pet. Exh. 11 at 4). In the initial review of Petitioner’s application, DFS staff apparently accepted Petitioner’s representation that his civil rights had, in fact, been restored.4/ However, in a “deficiencies” listing at the end of the application, DFS noted that Petitioner failed to provide a certificate of civil rights restoration, or other proof of restoration of his civil rights. Petitioner’s application was not denied because of these omissions, and Petitioner’s failure to provide such evidence in his application would not have been an impediment to receiving and considering proof of restoration of Petitioner’s civil rights at hearing, had such evidence been offered. At hearing, Petitioner attempted to prove that his civil rights were restored. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that he ever applied for restoration of his civil rights, or that his civil rights have been restored by order of the governor in the exercise of clemency power. Instead, the only evidence offered by Petitioner was a Florida voter status printout showing that he is an active registered voter. The exhibit was admitted for the limited purpose of showing that Petitioner was registered to vote in Florida. However, this fact is insufficient to support an inference that Petitioner’s civil rights must have been restored or he would not have been allowed to register to vote. If Petitioner has actually had his civil rights restored, there would be direct evidence of that, and Petitioner had no such evidence. It is equally or more plausible that Petitioner was allowed to register to vote in Florida by mistake; Petitioner acknowledged that he represented in his voter registration application that his civil rights were restored (just as he represented to DFS in his license application). Petitioner’s counsel argued that Petitioner was allowed to register to vote in Florida because Florida gave full faith and credit to what New Jersey had done. This argument was unsupported by evidence of how Petitioner became registered to vote in Florida. Regarding what was done in New Jersey, the only evidence offered by Petitioner was a “voter restoration handbook” from the state of New Jersey, which indicates as follows: “In New Jersey, any person who is no longer in prison or on parole or probation, can register to vote. . . . In New Jersey, unlike some other states, those who have been convicted of felony offenses in the past are not forever barred from voting. . . . Any ex-felon who has satisfactorily completed the term of his or her sentence can register to vote.” (Pet. Exh. 7, admitted for a limited purpose, at 1 - 2). The rest of the handbook simply describes how one goes about registering to vote in New Jersey. Under New Jersey law, then, one particular civil right--the right to vote--is taken away from convicted felons only until they complete their sentence, parole, and probation. This is confirmed by a New Jersey statute that has been officially recognized, providing that the right of suffrage--the right to vote--is taken away from any person “[w]ho is serving a sentence or is on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this or another state or of the United States.” § 29:4-1(8), N.J. Stat.5/ The right to vote is only one of the civil rights that may be lost by reason of being convicted of a crime. For example, under another New Jersey law officially recognized in this proceeding, persons convicted of a crime are disqualified from serving on a jury. See § 2C:51-3b., N.J. Stat. Petitioner presented no evidence to prove that he ever sought or received a restoration of his civil rights by executive order of the governor pursuant to an exercise of executive branch clemency power, either in the state of New Jersey or in Florida. In New Jersey, restoration of civil rights and privileges (one of which may be the right to vote) is accomplished pursuant to section 2A:167-5, New Jersey Statutes, officially recognized in this proceeding and providing in pertinent part: Any person who has been convicted of a crime and by reason thereof has been deprived of the right of suffrage or of any other of his civil rights or privileges . . . may make application for the restoration of the right of suffrage or of such other rights or privileges . . . which application the governor may grant by order signed by him. (emphasis added). Similarly, the Florida Constitution vests in the executive branch the following clemency powers: [T]he governor may, by executive order filed with the custodian of state records, suspend collection of fines and forfeitures, grant reprieves not exceeding sixty days and, with the approval of two members of the cabinet, grant full or conditional pardons, restore civil rights, commute punishment, and remit fines and forfeitures for offenses. (emphasis added). Art. IV, § 8(a), Fla. Const. Petitioner admitted that he did not apply to the governor for a restoration of civil rights in New Jersey, and he has no order from the governor restoring his civil rights. Similarly, Petitioner did not apply for and receive an order from the governor restoring his civil rights in Florida. Instead, he admitted that he is relying on whatever happened in New Jersey. The following testimony reveals Petitioner’s misconception of the process in New Jersey for restoration of civil rights: Q: Okay. Mr. Bivona, what’s your understanding of how your civil rights were restored in New Jersey? A: My understanding is that once probation and restitution and everything is completed, that civil rights are restored in the State of New Jersey. Q: And did that happen, to your knowledge? A: The completion? Q: Yes. A: Yes, sir. I also verified that with the State of New Jersey. I called them. The Court: I can’t consider that.[6/] A: I understand. I’m sorry. The Court: Do you have any exhibits that show that civil rights have been restored? Mr. Terrell: There’s a handbook from New Jersey that’s also how the rights are restored. [Pet. Exh. 8, in evidence for limited purpose] (Tr. 44).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident all-lines insurance adjuster. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 14th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Effective July 18, 1982, Respondent has effectuated its Corrective Action-Procedure Index and Corrective Action-Policy ("the policy") which, by its own terms, ". . . defines appropriate corrective actions for resolving performance problems and violations of rules of conduct." In the "Statements of Policy" section of the document, the policy is made to apply to all District employees and is intended to ". . . provide all employees with responsible and considerate supervision, and treat all employees in a fair and uniform manner." The policy also provides that ". . . [u]nsatisfactory performance or conduct shall be subject to the corrective actions outlined in the following procedures. " The policy categorizes unsatisfactory behavior into performance, personal and disciplinary problems, within each of which categories supervisory personnel are required to follow specific procedures. Although supervisors may discipline an employee to a lesser extent than that provided in the policy for a particular infraction, as indicated above, one of the specific stated purposes of the policy is to treat all of Respondent's employees in a fair and uniform manner. Disciplinary actions are divided into four categories according to the seriousness of the offense. Potential penalties range from verbal warnings for less serious offenses to discharge for more serious violations. The policy does provide, however, that even for the least serious category of offenses, a supervisor is required at a minimum to give a verbal warning and counselling for a first offense. Specifically, with respect to categories of offenses and penalties, the policy provides as follows: General Regulations: Categories are determined by the seriousness of the offense. Offenses in each category are assigned disciplinary points, which shall remain in effect for the time limits shown. Points and time limits are cumulative through all categories. A total of 100 points in effect may be cause for termination. Voided actions shall be removed from the unit personnel file after each annual merit review. Category 1 Offenses: (15 points remain in effect for three months with each action except verbal warning) Being more than 10 minutes late to work without notifying the appropriate super- visor, or division office. Failure to notify the appropriate super- visor or division office of absence, due to sickness, within 10 minutes from the start of the normal work day. Unauthorized absence from work or work station. Failure to report any injury or accident to immediate supervisor. Transporting unauthorized persons in District vehicles. Interfering with the work activities of other employees. Maximum Penalties: First offense Verbal warning Second or third offense Written warning Fourth offense 1 day suspension Fifth offense 2 day suspension Sixth offense 3 day suspension Seventh offense 5 day suspension Eighth offense Discharge Category 2 Offenses: (25 points remain in effect for six months with each action) Failure to follow approved safety procedures in accordance with the District Accident Prevention Manual. Abuse of District property or equipment. Unauthorized use of District property or equipment. Operating a District vehicle or equipment in an unsafe manner. Failure to follow unauthorized instructions. Failure by a supervisor to make a written report of any employee accident involving injury or property damage, which has been properly reported. Possession or display of an unauthorized weapon while performing official District duties. Use of abusive language to a co-worker. Maximum Penalties: First offense Written warning Second Offense 3 day suspension Third offense 5 day suspension Fourth offense Discharge Category 3 Offenses: (50 points remain in effect for one year with each action) Use of abusive or threatening language to the public, or use of threatening lan- guage to a co-worker. Failure to perform an assigned duty. Carelessness or negligence in the per- formance of duty resulting in serious injury or property damage. Maximum Penalties: First offense 5 day suspension Second offense Discharge Category 4 Offenses: (100 points and immediate discharge pending investigation) Theft Refusing to perform assigned duties. Assault upon co-workers or the public. Possession of or consuming alcoholic beverages, non-prescribed narcotics or controlled substances during working hours. Intentionally falsifying any District record or destroying any record in violation of state law. Maximum Penalty: First Offense Discharge By Memorandum dated March 19, 1982, Petitioner was advised by Respondent that he was assigned 25 disciplinary points for failure to follow authorized instructions, a Category 2e offense under Respondent's above-stated policy. By Memorandum dated July 30, 1982, Petitioner, who had worked for Respondent for eight years, was terminated from his employment because he had accumulated an additional 100 disciplinary points, 25 more than that required for termination under Respondent's policy. Specifically, Petitioner was assessed the additional 100 disciplinary points as follows: 25 points for failure to follow authorized instructions by not filing a grievance, a Category 2e offense; 25 points for the use of abusive language to a co-worker, a Category 2h offense; and 50 points for use of abusive or threatening language to a member of the public, a Category 3a offense. In his eight-year tenure as an employee of the Respondent, Petitioner had never been disciplined prior to the memoranda of March 19, 1982, and July 30, 1982. It is undisputed that Respondent has not complied with the formal rulemaking requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in adopting the challenged policy.
