The Issue Whether Petitioner, Cassondra Davis, suffered an adverse employment action as a result of unlawful discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made. Petitioner, Cassondra Davis, is a female African- American. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Brevard Correctional Institution (Department). Petitioner's last day of actual work at the Department was April 10, 1996. Susan Blais, Personnel Manager at Brevard Correction Institution during the relevant time frame, testified that because of medical problems, Petitioner was unable to return to work after April 10, 1996, until her physician released her to return to work. Petitioner never presented a medical return-to-work release. Instead, she utilized her entitlement to Family Medical Leave Act leave. Once this leave was exhausted, rather than terminate Petitioner, the Department wrote to her physician, Dr. F. F. Matuk, on September 16, 1996, requesting a diagnosis of Davis' condition, as well as an opinion as to whether she could perform the duties of a correctional officer as outlined in a job description enclosed with the request for opinion. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Dr. Matuk responded to the Department by letter dated September 20, 1996, stating that Petitioner had several work restrictions, including no weight manipulation over 20 to 30 pounds, avoidance of driving over 30 to 40 minutes, avoidance of neck extension, and allowances for extended periods of rest. He did not believe that Petitioner was able to perform the duties of a correctional officer but stated that she would most likely be able to perform a sedentary desk job. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) Susan Blais testified that no such desk jobs were available at that time. Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to the Department in July 1997, wherein she attributed the resignation to medical reasons. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Coleman, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cassondra A. Davis 1009 Cannes Drive Poinciana, Florida 34759-3918 Cassondra A. Davis 1216 Pua Lane, No. 107 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-3821 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's national origin is Spanish. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Customer Service Representative (CSR) at its West Palm Beach-Okeechobee branch (Branch Office) and was the only CSR at the Branch Office whose national origin was Spanish. A CSR is commonly known as a teller. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a single parent. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. In December 1994, Fran Bessent became the branch manager at the Branch Office. At that time and before she became branch manager, the Branch Office was extremely busy on Saturdays, and on a per-hour basis, Saturday was the busiest time of the week. Five to seven CSRs were employed at the Branch Office. In January 1995, Ms. Bessent met with the entire staff of the Branch Office. The meeting was mandatory. At the meeting, she informed the CSRs that, among other things, they would be required to work each and every Saturday and that, in return for working on Saturdays, the CSRs would be given a day off during the week. Petitioner was present during this meeting. At the mandatory meeting, Ms. Bessent also informed the CSRs that, if any one of them had a problem with working on Saturdays, he or she could seek a vacant position at and transfer to another branch office that was not as busy. She further informed the CSRs that, if any of them wanted a transfer, they had the responsibility of applying for the position and requesting the transfer. As branch manager, Ms. Bessent was responsible for preparing the work schedule for all employees. She prepared the work schedule between the tenth and the 15th of each month. Before making the change in the work schedule, reflecting CSRs working all Saturdays, she waited 30 to 45 days before implementing the change. Petitioner had a problem with coming to work each Saturday. She had a child and had problems getting a babysitter each and every Saturday. At all times material hereto, Petitioner had two supervisors, Namrata Gupta and Richard Danca,2 who were assistant branch managers at the Branch Office. The undersigned finds Petitioner's testimony credible that, after the mandatory meeting, she informed a supervisor as to her problem with reporting to work on Saturdays. Petitioner did not inform Ms. Gupta as to the problem with reporting to work on Saturdays. However, an inference is made that she informed Mr. Danca. Even though Petitioner had a problem with coming to work on Saturdays, the responsibility was still upon Petitioner to apply for a position at a branch not as busy and to seek a transfer. At no time did Petitioner apply for a position at another branch or seek a transfer. One CSR, Wendy Morgan, expressed difficulty with working on Saturdays and actively sought a position at another branch office. She was eventually transferred. Prior to her transfer, Ms. Morgan had no unexcused absences. Ms. Bessent made the work schedule available one month in advance. This advance notice provided employees an opportunity to make appropriate arrangements to accommodate the work schedule. Any employee who was not able to work on a particular Saturday in a month was required to notify Ms. Bessent in writing no later than the tenth day of the prior month. Shortly after the new Saturday schedule was implemented, Petitioner failed to report to work on three Saturdays, for which she was scheduled to work, in less than one month. Those Saturdays were March 31, 1995 and April 15 and 29, 1995. She was unable to obtain the services of a babysitter on those Saturdays. Petitioner did not notify Ms. Bessent in advance of her inability to work on those Saturdays. If an employee, including a CSR, at the Branch Office was going to be absent from work, the employee was required to contact his/her supervisor. Petitioner maintains that she contacted her supervisor or “somebody” on the day of the absences in March and April 1995 and informed the person that she was not reporting to work. Even though Petitioner called the Branch Office on the day of her absences, she was unsure as to whether she spoke with one of her supervisors, which was the required procedure. The undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony credible, and the testimony of Ms. Gupta credible that Petitioner did not contact her regarding the absences. An inference is made that Petitioner spoke with "somebody" who was not one of her supervisors. Petitioner's absence on the aforementioned Saturdays placed a hardship on the Branch Office. The assistant branch managers and the remaining CSRs were forced to cover Petitioner’s position and their own positions and to accommodate the customers. Branch managers had the authority to discipline employees for excessive absences. In making such a determination, the branch managers looked for a pattern of absences, focusing on how the absences impacted a branch office and customer service. The decision was made that Petitioner’s absences were excessive and to verbally counsel Petitioner regarding her absences. On May 11, 1995, the assistant branch managers verbally counseled Petitioner about her excessive absences. The branch managers questioned Petitioner at the counseling session as to whether she had an explanation for her absences. Petitioner failed to provide an explanation. After only two days following the verbal counseling, Petitioner again failed to report to work on Saturday, May 13, 1995. Petitioner called the Branch Office on the same day and indicated that she was not reporting to work. The undersigned again finds Petitioner's testimony credible that, when she called, she spoke with her supervisor or somebody. However, Petitioner did not speak to Ms. Gupta. The absence on May 13, 1995, was Petitioner's fourth absence. The decision was made by Petitioner's supervisors to give her a written warning and place her on a 90-day probation. On May 26, 1995, in a document entitled "Formal Performance Documentation" (FPD), Petitioner's supervisors gave her the written warning and placed her on the probation. In the FPD, the supervisors stated, among other things, that "Improvement is expected immediately" and that "any further incidents involving absences may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination". Petitioner's supervisors discussed the FPD with her. Petitioner was informed that she could make any comments that she desired to make. The FPD contained a section for Petitioner to make comments, but she did not make any comments on it. Petitioner also refused to sign the FPD. After having been counseled, given a written warning, and placed on probation, Petitioner again failed to report to work. Petitioner was absent on June 16 and 17, 1995. Petitioner admits that she was absent on June 17th but does not recall being absent on June 16th. The undersigned again finds Petitioner's testimony credible that she called the Branch Office on the day of the absence acknowledged by her, and spoke with her supervisor or "somebody." Petitioner did not speak to Ms. Gupta, and an inference is made that Petitioner spoke with "somebody" who was not one of her supervisors. Petitioner violated the terms of her probation. Even if Petitioner was absent only on June 17th, she violated her probation. After the June absences, Petitioner's supervisors discussed the absences with Ms. Bessent. They decided that Petitioner exhibited a pattern of absences in March through June 1995, which constituted excessive absences. They further decided that Petitioner should be terminated. On June 21, 1995, Petitioner's supervisors terminated her employment with Respondent for excessive absences. The termination was memorialized in a document entitled "Termination of Employment and Exit Interview" (TEEI). In addition to the TEEI, Petitioner was verbally informed of the reason for her termination. The TEEI contained a section for Petitioner to make comments, but she did not write any comments. Further, Petitioner refused to sign the TEEI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination complaint of Chiara T. Spradlin against Washington Mutual Bank, f/k/a Great Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: This discrimination case involves an allegation by petitioner, David Coleman, that he was denied employment by respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), because of his handicap. The City denies this allegation. A preliminary investigation by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no probable cause that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. By way of background, petitioner has been employed by the City on four separate occasions, the last time as an employee in the mosquito control department in 1984. He was "released" the same year for "unacceptable leave." Since 1990, he has applied for at least twenty separate positions with the City. In conjunction with those and earlier efforts to obtain a job with the City, he has filed several job applications, including one in December 1987 and another in June 1992. Such applications are valid for a period of two years after they are signed and filed with the City. Therefore, if petitioner applied for a position with the City in March 1991, he did not have a valid job application on file. The petition for relief filed by Coleman describes the unlawful employment practice allegedly committed by the City as follows: unlawful hired or employment practice: with veteran preference that I have, and a handicap, which is alleged. The petition for relief does not describe the handicap. At hearing, however, petitioner contended he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Petitioner says that he applied for a job as a "traffic checker" with the City's engineering department in March 1991. City records reveal, however, that it has no such position called "traffic checker," and thus it hired no one for that job in 1991. It does have a position called "parking enforcement specialist," but since no description of the functions of that job is of record, it is unknown if the two positions are the same. Even so, City records do not show that petitioner made application for that position in March 1991. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, petitioner says that he interviewed for the position with an unidentified "supervisor," and he was told to prepare a resume, which he later gave to the interviewer's secretary. Thereafter, he made inquiry with the City's affirmative action office and learned that a veteran, not disabled, had been hired to fill the slot. Petitioner then brought this action charging the City with an unlawful employment practice. It is noted he has subsequently filed a second discrimination claim pertaining to another job application with the City. At hearing, petitioner contended that he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Other than his own assertion, however, no evidence was produced to confirm this disability, and as to this issue it is found that insufficient credible evidence exists to support a finding in petitioner's favor. The City admits that in one of petitioner's job applications filed with the City, petitioner attached a copy of a DD214 form reflecting that he was honorably discharged from the military. Also, the City acknowledges that in one of the applications is found a statement that petitioner had a 30 percent service related disability but the type of disability is not described. Whether the service related disability was still valid in March 1991 is not of record. Finally, petitioner's exhibit 1 is a copy of what purports to be a "statement of patient's treatment" from a VA outpatient clinic prepared in February 1985, but this document is hearsay, and in any event, is so dated as to have no probative value in this case. The more credible evidence shows that petitioner did not apply for the position of "traffic checker" or parking enforcement specialist in 1991. Moreover, petitioner had no valid application on file at that time, and there is no credible evidence as to who, if anyone, was hired to fill the position or what were the qualifications of the person hired. Even if one assumes an application was filed, the record is silent as to why petitioner's application may have been denied or, assuming he had a handicap, whether he could adequately perform the essential functions of the job. Given these considerations, and the lack of evidence to establish that petitioner is disabled with a handicap, it is found that the City did not commit an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5926 Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commissioin Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Mr. David Coleman 1071 Ontario Street Jacksonville, FL 32205 Brian M. Flaherty, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $100 fine for each of the class III violations which have been established, for a total fine of $1200, but that no additional fine be assessed for the unclassified violations. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dorothy K. Emrick Oakland Park Retuirement Annex Ageing and Adult Service, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 John Marfilius Oakland Park Retirement Annex Ageing and Adult Services, Inc. 5605 N.W. 27th Court Lauderhill, FL 33313 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact On January 4, 1994, Respondent completed an applicant security check form for employment with the Petitioner. The form specified a series of questions related to past or pending criminal charges to which Respondent was to check either a "yes" box or a "no" box. On each occasion, Respondent checked the "no" box. At the conclusion of the form is a certification as follows: I certify that the above responses are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and are made in good faith. I understand that any incompleteness or false information on this form may be just cause for a rejection of my application for employment or dismissal in the event I am employed by the School Board of Palm Beach County. Respondent did not disclose that in 1987 she was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a weapon. As a result of the charges, Respondent was sentenced to one year probation, required to pay a fine and court costs, and fifty hours of community service. When Mr. Lachance learned of the results of the background search (which differed from Respondent's application), he met with Respondent who admitted the criminal charges but who alleged that she had believed them to be resolved. The recommendation was then made to the Board to terminate Respondent's employment as a bus driver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the school district in accordance with the Board action of April 7, 1995. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2884 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee M. Rosenberg, Esq. School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Ms. Tina King 5030 Elcharo North West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Dr. Bernard Shulman Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 in this case is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent for his failure to file fingerprint and abuse-registry screening forms for one of his employees, in violation of Rule 10M-12.002(1)(d)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and failure to employ a person certified in first aid, in violation of Rule 10M-12.004(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued Respondent license number 288-7 on February 15, 1988, for the operation of a child-care facility at 261-B S. Central Avenue in Oviedo, Florida. The license was amended on October 3, 1988. On November 15, 1988, Larry D. Lowe, a Human Services Program Analyst employed by Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the subject facility. At the conclusion of the inspection, he prepared a checklist noting deficiencies as to background screening. Specifically, Mr. Lowe noted that the fingerprint cards and abuse-registry forms had not been completed for an employee named Cindy Samons and that these omissions were in violation of Rule 10M-12.002(1)(d)(2), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Lowe gave Ms. Samons a copy of the checklist, which gave Respondent until November 22, 1988, to submit the required forms. Mr. Lowe returned to the subject facility on December 28, 1988, and discovered that the forms had been completed and placed in the employee's file, but they had never been submitted to Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner had never had the chance to conduct the necessary background screening on Ms. Samons, who was at the time the sole employee at the facility. Mr. Lowe recommended an administrative fine of $360 based upon a daily fine of $10 for the 36-day period between the initial corrective due date and the date of the follow-up inspection. On October 11, 1988, Ms. Marilyn Willming, R.N., who is a public health nurse with the Seminole County Public Health Unit, performed a medical inspection of the subject facility and discovered that, among other things, no employee on the premises had obtained a current first-aid certificate and that this omission was in violation of Rule 10M-12.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Willming gave one of the employees a copy of the medical inspection checklist, which gave Respondent until October 25, 1988, to correct this problem. Flora Kavitch, R.N., who is also an employee of the Seminole County Public Health Unit, conducted a reinspection of the facility on December 23, 1988, and discovered, among other things, that the facility still had no employee with a current first-aid certificate. She recommended an administrative fine of $780 based upon a daily fine of $10 for the 78-day period between the date of the initial inspection and the date of the follow-up inspection. Each of the above-described deficiencies is a condition or occurrence related to the operation and maintenance of a facility and indirectly or potentially threatens the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the children.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1140. ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 1st day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr. District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hilton J. Soto 6501 Palmetto Drive Winter Park, Florida 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 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Hilton J. Soto Little Theresa Child Care 261-B South Central Avenue Oviedo, Florida 32765 =================================================================
