The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondent in violation of the Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70 (“Chapter 70"). Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a bus operator by Respondent because of his disability in violation of Chapter 70.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Mastromarino, is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, is publicly funded transit agency and is an employer under Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from May 7, 1979, until June 10, 1997, as a bus operator. The position of bus operator requires a commercial driver’s license. After experiencing vision problems, Petitioner visited his primary physician in February 1997. The primary physician diagnosed Petitioner with diabetic retinopathy and referred him to an ophthalmologist. After his diagnosis, Petitioner informed his immediate supervisor of his condition and availability to do light-duty work, and requested a medical leave form to take with him to his appointment with the ophthalmologist. On March 3, 1997, Petitioner visited ophthalmologist Dr. William T. Cobb, who confirmed the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, a condition that causes the blood vessels in the retina of the eye to excrete liquid and blood, thus impairing vision. Dr. Cobb informed Petitioner that as a result of his diabetic retinopathy, his vision was insufficient to drive any vehicle, including PSTA buses. In a Progress Report dated March 3, 1997, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner “works as a bus driver and his occupation is threatened by his ocular disease.” Dr. Cobb also completed Petitioner’s medical leave form entitled Certification of Health Care Provider. On the form, Dr. Cobb described Petitioner’s vision as “limited to less than required for driving a bus.” The form also inquired whether Petitioner was able to perform any one or more of the essential functions of his job. In response, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner was “unable to see to drive.” With regard to the probable duration of Petitioner’s incapacity, Dr. Cobb stated that the duration was “unknown.” Petitioner was referred by Dr. Cobb to Dr. W. Sanderson Grizzard for laser surgery. The first of several surgeries were performed in May and June of 1997. During this time, Petitioner was extremely concerned about the outcome of the surgeries. He understood from his physicians that there was a chance that his visual limitations could worsen and that there was a possibility that he might lose his eyesight altogether. Therefore, his immediate goal was to obtain medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to have the surgeries performed. He also desired light-duty work in order to stay employed while he scheduled the surgeries. He was hoping that when his surgeries were complete, he could discuss his future with PSTA as far as which other jobs he could perform. He estimated that he would be able to discuss future work with PSTA in August or September of 1997. This information, however, was not conveyed to PSTA. Petitioner’s inquiries to his immediate supervisor regarding light-duty were referred to Gail Bilbrey, Benefits Specialist. Bilbrey administers a program instituted by Respondent, although not in writing, that assigns eligible employees on workers’ compensation leave to available temporary, part-time light-duty positions that accommodate their physical restrictions. In administering the program, Bilbrey reviews the medical documentation of an employee on workers’ compensation leave and determines if an existing position is vacant within one of several PSTA departments that the employee may be able to perform given the employee’s physical limitations. Because the positions available under this program are existing positions and are part of a bargaining unit of a labor union, light-duty assignments are not created for individual employees. Light- duty positions are extremely limited in number and are often not available for all employees injured on the job. The purpose of PSTA's light-duty program is to save costs of workers' compensation injuries by utilizing employees on workers' compensation leave, whom PSTA is required to pay, in vacant light-duty positions. Temporary light-duty positions, thus, are given to employees on workers' compensation by PSTA. The intent of the program is for the employee to occupy the position only on a temporary basis; thus, light-duty assignments are only granted to employees who are expected to return to work in their regular job. Since Petitioner was not on workers' compensation leave and was not expected to return to his bus-driving job, Petitioner was not eligible for a light-duty assignment. Even if Petitioner had qualified for light-duty, no light-duty positions were available at PSTA at the time of his request. Petitioner was informed of the lack of light-duty work during several conversations with Bilbrey. In response to his request, Bilbrey also prepared a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, indicating that no light-duty was available at that time. The main light-duty positions available at PSTA involved money-counting and ride surveying. Petitioner’s vision impairment prevented him from performing the functions of ride surveying, which includes observing passengers boarding and exiting PSTA buses at each bus stop and recording the results in writing. The money-counting light-duty position required the use of money-counting machines, checking bills, handling coins, and delivering/picking up tickets and money at Respondent’s remote terminals. Despite his vision limitations, Petitioner claims to have been aware of several full-time positions that he alleges he would have been able to perform in June 1997. First, Petitioner claims to have been able to perform the position of fueler/cleaner, which requires a valid Florida Class “B” Commercial Driver’s license, with passenger endorsement and air brakes, the ability to clean buses, and the ability to check coolant and oil levels. However, Petitioner had relinquished his commercial driver’s license in 1997, his physicians had stated he could not drive a bus, and, as observed by Bilbrey, his vision was insufficient to perform the job duty of checking coolant and oil levels. Two other positions became available at PSTA during the time in question which Petitioner now contends he would have been able to perform with adaptive equipment. First, the position of Customer Service Representative was posted by PSTA in early March 1997. This position involves selling tickets and passes, giving route and scheduling information to the public, and delivering supplies to three of Respondent’s remote locations. In 1997, maps and route schedules were not computerized and involved reading very small print. In addition, if Petitioner had qualified for and had been awarded the position, as the least senior Customer Service Representative, Petitioner likely would have been assigned as a “floater,” requiring Petitioner to be able to “float” between different remote terminals at different times to relieve other Customer Service Representatives. The shift of Customer Service Representatives begins at 6:00 a.m., prior to regular bus service. Given the fact that Petitioner was unable to read the fine print of the maps and schedules in a timely fashion and because transportation to deliver supplies, to float between terminals, and to report to work at 6:00 a.m. prior to bus service would have been a significant issue, Petitioner would not have been able to perform the job of Customer Service Representative. Also, in June 1997, the position of Clerk Risk Management became available. Petitioner had limited computer and clerical experience. Therefore, because this position requires extensive typing, computer work, and proofreading, Petitioner did not qualify for the position due to his limited vision and lack of computer experience. Petitioner was unable to perform these functions. After several surgeries, Petitioner's vision has stabilized but he is still legally blind by Social Security disability standards. Regardless of whether Petitioner would have been qualified, Petitioner did not apply for a request consideration for any of these positions or provide any documentation to Respondent indicating his ability to perform these jobs. Instead, in May 1997, Petitioner applied for long-term disability benefits. He completed the application in Bilbrey’s office with the aid of a magnifying glass. Attached to the application for long-term disability benefits was an Attending Physician’s Statement dated April 30, 1997, which was also provided to Respondent by Petitioner. On the form, Dr. Cobb indicated that the approximate date Petitioner would be able to resume any work was “indefinite” and that his prognosis for work was secondary to vision. Petitioner was granted and accepted long-term disability benefits. Pursuant to the long-term disability policy, Petitioner was found totally disabled and could not work. In addition, in April 1997, Petitioner requested an extended leave of absence beyond his FMLA leave that was due to expire in June 1997. However, when applying for the extended leave of absence, Petitioner was unable to specify a time frame in which he would be able to return to work. In fact, in a letter dated May 28, 1997, provided to Bilbrey on June 9, 1997, in support of Petitioner’s request for extended leave, Dr. Grizzard indicated that he “would expect [Petitioner] to not be able to work for at least 3 months.” Because Petitioner’s physicians were not able to provide a specific date when he could return to work, Petitioner’s request for extended leave was denied in accordance with Respondent’s policy. Thereafter, since Petitioner had exhausted all FMLA leave, was unable to perform the essential functions of his job as a bus operator, even with reasonable accommodations, and was unable to provide a definite date of return, Petitioner was terminated from his position as a bus operator on June 10, 1997, in accordance with PSTA policy. After his termination, Petitioner filed a grievance wherein he again requested an extended leave of absence until September 9, 1997, so that he could concentrate on his surgeries and to determine if he would be able to return to work at PSTA. A grievance hearing before Executive Director Roger Sweeney was held on June 30, 1997. At that hearing, Petitioner did not request light-duty assignment or reassignment to a new permanent position. Petitioner’s grievance was denied since Petitioner was unable to perform the duties for which he was hired, had been absent from employment with PSTA in excess of three months, had exhausted all FMLA leave, and was unable to provide a definite date of return. Following the grievance hearing, Petitioner was referred by the Division of Blind Services to Abilities of Florida for vocational rehabilitation training in January 1998. An assessment of his abilities indicated that Petitioner had limited keyboarding, computer, and clerical experience and was unable to score high enough on the 10-key calculator test to qualify for clerical training. Approximately three years after his termination, Petitioner also requested an evaluation to determine whether he could count money. In an informal test, Petitioner counted $55 in petty cash. However, no vocational report was ever provided to PSTA by Petitioner. The evidence fails to prove that Respondent’s employment decisions toward Petitioner were based upon or influenced by his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig L. Berman, Esquire Berman Law Firm, P. A. 360 Central Avenue Suite 1260 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie N. Rugg City of St. Petersburg 175 Fifth Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned his career service position at Children, Youth, & Families Services.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner was employed as a counselor working with the District XI Children, Youth, & Families (CYS) Services. Petitioner was assigned to monitor approximately twenty-five foster care children. After some past employment disputes, Petitioner was reinstated by the Department effective March 31, 1987. Petitioner returned to work on April 17, 1987, however, he was not satisfied with the working environment. In a memorandum dated April 22, 1987, Petitioner alleged: The same pattern of capricious, arbitrary and discriminatory practices which led to my previous illegal dismissal from services at a time I was disable, as the result of an accident which had occurred while fulfilling my duties for this Department, are still present. All my fundamental rights have been thoroughly violated. Even workman compensation has been denied to me. With so painful experience and in light of outstanding losses I have consequently suffered, any idea of subsidizing HRS with my own car, car insurance, car repairs and advance funding for gasoline purchase as an obligatory condition for employment at CYF is being rejected as unfair practices; and violate the equal Employment Opportunity Laws. Various efforts made to have this abusive situation corrected have been met with the flagrant opposition of fierce administrators of this department, totally obstinated not to let fairness and logic prevail. In light of all these facts, it is my conclusion that my interests can be better preserved by my abstention from any involvement at HRS until these matters are properly attended by your diligence in the best of the delays, or by a court of law. In consequence effective Friday April 24, 1987 I have decided to temporarily not to be in attendance at Unit 462 Foster Care. In response, the District Program Manager for Social Services, Frank Manning, wrote to Petitioner on April 23, 1987, and advised him that failure to report to work as scheduled would be cause for action pursuant to Chapter 22A- 7.010(2). Petitioner failed to appear or to call in to work for hour consecutive work days, to wit: April 27-30, 1987. Petitioner was not authorized to take leave during the time in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a Final Order affirming the decision that Petitioner abandoned his position and thereby resigned from the Career Service. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 5th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Unit 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33215 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louis C. Germaine 308 Northeast 117th Street Miami, Florida 33161 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, against Petitioner due to his age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an Employee Relations Specialist from July 30, 2007, to March 7, 2008. Petitioner’s position as an Employee Relations Specialist was a full-time salaried exempt position. Throughout Petitioner’s employment, Mary Campbell was the Director of Human Resources for Respondent, and William Davis was the Human Resources Manager for Respondent. Campbell was Petitioner and Davis’s direct supervisor. On March 6, 2008, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Campbell, effective Friday, March 7, 2008. Pursuant to Respondent’s termination policy, salaried exempt employees are expected to provide a minimum of four weeks’ notice of their resignation, and failure to do so could block their eligibility for rehire and payment of accrued paid time off (PTO). Petitioner failed to provide the required four weeks’ notice when he resigned his employment with Respondent. Petitioner understood that resigning with less than four weeks’ notice would block his eligibility for rehire, but, despite that understanding, he chose to resign on such short notice because he was starting a new job the next Monday. Petitioner expressed that understanding in his resignation letter, stating: “I understand the ramification of my early resignation but my future employer will not hold a position for thirty days.” (Resignation letter, Respondent’s Ex. 1). On March 7, 2008, Campbell signed a Personnel Action Notice relating to Petitioner’s resignation of employment, stating that “Dwayne Clark resigned his position for another opportunity without proper notice, accepting the consequences of losing PTO and rehire eligibility.” Campbell, without the involvement of Davis, classified Petitioner as ineligible for rehire on March 7, 2008. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged this action was not discriminatory. The Monday after his resignation, Petitioner began working for Citizens Property Insurance as a Human Resources Generalist, and was involuntarily terminated after six weeks of employment with Citizens. In July 2009, Davis was promoted to Director of Human Resources after Campbell resigned from her employment with Respondent. On April 15, 2011, Richard Rivera was hired by Respondent as the Human Resources Manager. Prior to that, Rivera was employed by University of Florida Shands Medical Center’s (UF Shands) Human Resources Department, which shares the same building with Respondent’s Human Resources Department. Rivera knew Petitioner as a human resources employee of Respondent in 2007/2008. However, they had never spoken prior to mediation of this matter in 2017. Since becoming Director of Human Resources, Davis has received several requests for an exception to the termination policy from former employees classified as ineligible for rehire. Though he has the authority to do so, Davis has never made an exception to the termination policy or rehired anyone who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. In July 2010 and early 2012, Petitioner asked Davis to make an exception to the termination policy and reclassify him as eligible for rehire. However, Davis did not reclassify Petitioner as eligible for rehire because “[w]hen you make an exception, you have problems enforcing the policy going forward, so that’s why I do not make exceptions.” Petitioner claims that while he was employed with Respondent, Campbell made two exceptions to the termination policy and allowed the rehire of two former employees who had been classified as ineligible for rehire. However, other than their gender and race, Petitioner could not name or otherwise identify the two former employees in a way that would allow Respondent to attempt to verify his claim. Petitioner asserted that a physician assistant (PA) had been rehired by Respondent after providing less than four weeks’ notice of her resignation. Respondent was able to identify that individual as Allison McFauls. Ms. McFauls has worked as a Senior PA since 1998 and has never been an employee of Respondent or subject to Respondent’s termination policy. Ms. McFauls has always been employed by UF Shands, which is a separate entity from UF Jacksonville Physicians, Inc., with a separate human resources department and separate personnel policies. Neither Davis nor Rivera is aware of any employee of Respondent receiving an exception to the termination policy. Davis classified Hubert Collins, an Employee Relations Manager, who is nearly 20 years younger than Petitioner, and Christy Wright, who is even younger than Collins, as ineligible for rehire due to their failures to comply with the required resignation notice period in the termination policy. During their conversation in July 2010, Petitioner asked Davis if Respondent would be interested in contracting with Petitioner’s consulting company to assist with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance review. Respondent did not contract with Petitioner because Respondent performed compliance review work and completed its Affirmative Action Plan in-house. Davis did not ask Petitioner questions regarding his age and does not recall having a conversation with Petitioner about retirement since Petitioner’s employment with Respondent. Even if such topics of conversation occurred, Petitioner agreed he may have been the one to raise them. On September 12, 2016, Petitioner applied online for a vacant Employee Relations Specialist position with Respondent. However, due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with Respondent’s four-week notice requirement, Petitioner was ineligible for rehire with Respondent in September 2016. On September 14, 2016, Rivera reviewed the applications and selected which applicants would be interviewed and considered for the open Employee Relations Specialist position. Because Petitioner was ineligible for rehire, Rivera removed Petitioner from further consideration. Rivera did not base his decision on Petitioner’s age, and there was no persuasive evidence of record that Rivera was biased against Petitioner because of his age. On September 14, 2016, Rivera rejected Petitioner’s application in the online application system and entered “ineligible for rehire” as the reason for rejecting Petitioner’s application. The same day, Petitioner was sent a form email notifying him that his application had been removed from consideration for the Employee Relations Specialist position. No one but Rivera was involved in the decision to remove Petitioner from consideration for the position. Rivera did not inform Davis or anyone else that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position. Likewise, Davis never directed Rivera or anyone else to reject applications from Petitioner. Petitioner did not communicate with Davis, Rivera, or any other employee about his September 12, 2016, application. Nor did Petitioner request an exception to the termination policy from Davis or anyone else in 2016. Davis did not know that Petitioner had applied for the Employee Relations Specialist position until November 2016, when Respondent was notified by the Commission that Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination. After receiving Petitioner’s charge of discrimination in November 2016, Davis reviewed Petitioner’s September 2016 application, and noticed that Petitioner stated that he had resigned from his employment with Citizens Property Insurance, which Davis knew to be false. If Petitioner had been hired for the Employee Relations Specialist position, Davis would have terminated Petitioner’s employment for falsifying his application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts 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 30th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Margaret P. Zabijaka, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Jesse D. Bannon, Esquire Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Suite 1700 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Dwayne E. Clark, Sr. 11334 Bridges Road Jacksonville, Florida 32218 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s position was properly reclassified by Respondent under the Service First Initiative from Career Service to Select Exempt Service.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Blow-Beasley was employed with DCFS, formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, hereinafter HRS, in Broward County, Florida from February 1, 1988 to June 7, 2002. From August 3, 2000 to July 2001, as part of her employment with DCFS, Ms. Blow-Beasley worked for Economic Services. On September 29, 2000, Ms. Blow-Beasley was hired as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor by DCFS, which was a Career Service position. From September 29, 2000 to July 2001, a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor was a supervisory position with HRS and/or DCFS. From September 29, 2000 to July 1, 2001, in her role as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley supervised two or more employees. As part of her duties as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley reviewed and approved employee time (work time, sick leave, annual leave, vacation, etc.) of employees under her supervision. Also, as part of her duties as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley reviewed the work and performance of employees under her supervision. Additionally, as part of her duties as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley was responsible for ensuring that employees under her supervision met certain DCFS’ performance standards and measures. Further, as part of her duties as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley was responsible for ensuring that employees under her supervision complied with certain state and federal laws. Furthermore, as part of her duties as a Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor, Ms. Blow-Beasley conducted, approved and/or executed performance evaluations for those persons whom she supervised. By letter dated June 15, 2001, Ms. Blow-Beasley was notified by DCFS that her position in Career Service was being “transferred” to SES, effective July 1, 2001. Her position in Career Service was reclassified as a SES position. Ms. Blow-Beasley informed her supervisor that she did not want to remain in SES and would accept a demotion to be in Career Service. Her request was not granted. From July 2001 to June 7, 2002, as part of her employment with DCFS, Ms. Blow-Beasley worked for the Economic Self-Sufficiency, hereinafter ESS, Program. From July 2001 to June 7, 2002, Ms. Blow-Beasley’s position title was, and she was employed as, ESS Supervisor Specialist. From July 2001 to June 7, 2002, an ESS Supervisor Specialist was a supervisory position with DCFS. As part of her duties as an ESS Supervisor Specialist, Ms. Blow-Beasley reviewed and approved employee time (work time, sick leave, annual leave, vacation, etc.) of employees under her supervision. Also, as part of her duties as an ESS Supervisor Specialist, Ms. Blow-Beasley reviewed the work and performance of employees under her supervision. Additionally, as part of her duties as an ESS Supervisor Specialist, Ms. Blow-Beasley was responsible for ensuring that employees under her supervision met certain DCFS’ performance standards and measures. Further, as part of her duties as an ESS Supervisor Specialist, Ms. Blow-Beasley was responsible for ensuring that employees under her supervision complied with certain state and federal laws. Furthermore, as part of her duties as an ESS Supervisor Specialist, Ms. Blow-Beasley conducted, approved and/or executed performance evaluations for those persons whom she supervised. Ms. Blow-Beasley does not dispute that, from September 29, 2000 to June 7, 2002, she was a supervisor and had been in both Career Service and SES as a supervisor. Ms. Blow-Beasley does not dispute that, when her position was reclassified from Career Service to SES, her duties and responsibilities did not change, but remained the same. No direct evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Blow-Beasley had the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees. However, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that, based on her duties, she had the authority to effectively recommend the action to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline subordinate employees. Approximately one year after the reclassification, on June 7, 2002, Ms. Blow-Beasley was dismissed from employment with DCFS. On the said date, she signed a letter acknowledging receipt of the notice of dismissal from DCFS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order finding that Ms. Sherry A. Blow-Beasley’s Career Service position was properly reclassified as a Select Exempt Service position. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November 2008, 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 18th day of November, 2008.
The Issue What amount of legal fees and costs should be awarded to Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e) or 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, for Respondent’s erroneous classification of Petitioner’s position and subsequent failure to correct that error and reclassify Petitioner’s position back to career service as requested by her in Georgalis v. F.D.O.T., DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2002, Petitioner was discharged from her position with the Department without stated cause or hearing. See Petitioner’s Ex. 1-2, Dep’t of Transportation v. FCHR, 842 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). On June 11, 2003, Petitioner was temporarily reinstated by order of the Circuit Court to her position with the Department pursuant to section 112.3187(9)(f). Petitioner’s Ex. 1-3. The administrative case underlying this request for fees and costs was initiated by Petitioner through the filing of a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on August 15, 2002. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4. In that Petition, Petitioner demonstrated, through reference to the position description provided to her by the Department, that she did not fit within any of the categories of employees exempted from career service by Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4, paragraph 7. Petitioner also put the Department on notice that she believed the Department’s action in reclassifying her was “frivolous and was done for an improper purpose,” since it was contradicted by the Department’s own documents. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4, paragraph 12. She also requested that she be awarded appropriate attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. After nearly four months, the Department forwarded the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal administrative hearing regarding whether its decision to reclassify Petitioner was proper. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-5. By this letter, which was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 10, 2003, the Department requested a formal administrative hearing and manifested its opposition to the relief requested by Petitioner in her Petition. A hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED on April 15, 2004. Following the preparation of a transcript, the parties submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike portions of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order because it improperly raised an argument that Petitioner could properly be exempted from career service because she was an “administrator.” Petitioner’s Ex. 1-6. That Motion was granted. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-7.1/ On July 2, 2004, the undersigned entered a Recommended Order concluding that Petitioner was improperly reclassified into Select Exempt Service. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, p. 12. On September 1, 2005, the Department entered a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order entered in DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED.2/ Petitioner’s Ex. 1-11. Paragraph 13 of the fully-adopted Recommended Order states that: based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, paragraph 13. In paragraph 19 of the fully-adopted Recommended Order, the undersigned concluded that: [t]he suggestion of the Respondent’s witness that the exemption should apply if a state employee is assigned to work with anyone retained or commissioned by Respondent to perform services for Respondent, however menial the task, simply misconstrues the statutory exemption: the relevant issue for the purposes of the exemption is whether such persons are department “employees,” not whether a department has contracted or engaged their services as independent technical consultants. Such contract administration is not relevant to the issue of whether Petitioner could properly be classified as a selected exempt employee. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, paragraph 19. Following entry of the Recommended Order, Petitioner filed her two (2) Motions for Attorneys’ Fees. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-12 and 1-13. These motions seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs based on the lack of factual or legal support for the Department’s opposition to Petitioner’s request that the Department correct its error in reclassifying her position to Select Exempt Service. Id. Petitioner submitted an affidavit and itemized statement of the requested hours, a summary of hours by the attorney, and a summary of costs incurred in this matter. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-14. Petitioner also submitted the testimony of J. Steven Menton, Esquire, who corroborated the reasonableness of the services and time expended by Petitioner’s counsel and also confirmed the reasonableness of the fees charged and costs incurred by Petitioner’s counsel for those services. The Department did not contest the number of hours sought by Petitioner’s counsel. Respondent did offer the testimony of Michael Mattimore, Esquire, who was also counsel of record for the Department in this case, suggesting that the rates charged by Petitioner’s counsel exceeded those which are normally charged by similar attorneys in the community. Mattimore’s testimony related to fees charged in “employment” law cases in which he has been involved during his career and did not focus on administrative litigation challenging the actions of a governmental agency, such as the present case which involved more than merely examining the factual circumstances surrounding a discharge or other adverse employment action. Confirming the complexity of the underlying case was Mattimore’s testimony regarding the outcome in other reclassification cases. The great majority of reclassification challenges (more than 95 percent of them) have been resolved in favor of the governmental agency or have not been pursued by the impacted employee. Id. The outcome obtained by attorneys for Petitioner in the underlying case is suggestive of fees toward the high end of the range. Petitioner reported the following hours and rates (Petitioner’s Ex. 1-14): LAWYERS: Hours Rate Amount M. Stephen Turner, P.A. 44.40 $400 $17,760.00 David K. Miller, P. A. 1.00 $300 $ 300.00 Martin A. Fitzpatrick 228.50 $250 $57,125.00 Brooke Lewis .90 $200 $ 80.00 TOTAL ATTORNEY HOURS 274.80 $75,365.00 Paralegals: Theresa J. Everhart Hours 1.90 Rate $80 Amount $152.00 Trishia Finkey 1.00 $80 80.00 TOTAL PARALEGAL HOURS 2.90 $ 232.00 TOTAL LEGAL FEES: $75.597.00 The hours and rates requested are found to be reasonable in view of the novelty and complexity of the issues, level of legal skills required, and the result obtained for the Petitioner. The rates sought are in line with fees charged by similarly-situated attorneys for similar work in the community. The amount requested is reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Moreover, the costs and expenses for which reimbursement is sought ($1,523.25) and the expert witness fees of $1400 ($280 /hour for 5 hours) are also reasonable and are of a kind typically billed to clients in addition to the hourly rate charged.
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was formerly employed as a Tax Auditor II in Respondent's Fort Lauderdale office. In May, 1987, Petitioner filed a charge against Respondent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge was docketed as Charge No. 150871115. Eleven months later, Petitioner filed a second charge against Respondent with the EEOC. This second charge was docketed as Charge No. 150881243. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Petitioner requested that he be granted leave without pay "until both EEOC investigations [were) over." Petitioner's request resulted in a memorandum of understanding and agreement between Petitioner and the Acting Director of Respondent's Division of Audits, Glenn Bedonie. The memorandum was signed by Bedonie on May 9, 1988, and by Petitioner the following day. It provided in pertinent part as follows: This memorandum will confirm our agreement that the Department is granting your request for leave without pay until such time as the two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations are completed and the findings or conclusions are rendered and final. This action is based upon your voluntary request dated May 3, 1988 attached herein. You will remain on approved leave without pay commencing at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 1988 for (12) twelve calendar months or until a finding or conclusion has been rendered and becomes final by the EEOC in both of the above EEOC investigations. If a finding is not so rendered in both investigations within (12) calendar months, and if you make a timely request to this office the Department agrees to request an extension from the Department of Administration of your leave of absence without pay under Rule 22A- 8.016(2), F.A.C. Such extension is to last until such time as an investigative finding or conclusion is rendered and becomes final in both investigations. On May 10, 1988, the same day he signed the foregoing memorandum of understanding and agreement, Petitioner advised his supervisor in writing that the following were "two addresses where mail will reach me:" P.O. Box 22-2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022 and 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33016. Petitioner did not indicate any other manner in which he could be contacted. By letter dated August 31, 1988, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No. 150871115, that the evidence obtained during the investigation [did] not establish a violation of the statute." The letter also contained the following advisement: This determination does not conclude the processing of this charge. If the charging Party wishes to have this determination reviewed, he must submit a signed letter to the Determination Review Program which clearly sets forth the reasons for requesting the review and which lists the Charge Number and Respondent's name. Charging Party must also attach a copy of this Determination to his letter. These documents must be personally delivered or mailed (postmarked) on or before 09-14-88 to the Determinations Review Program, Office of Program Operations, EEOC, 2401 E. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507. It is recommended that some proof of mailing, such as certified mail receipt, be secured. If the Charging Party submits a request by the date shown above, the Commission will review the determination. Upon completion of the review, the Charging Party and Respondent will be issued a final determination which will contain the results of the review and what further action, if any, the Commission may take. The final determination will also give notice, as appropriate, of the Charging Party's right to sue. Petitioner requested review of the Miami District Director's determination in Case No. 150871115. By letter dated April 28, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were notified of the results of that review. The body of the letter read as follows: The Commission has reviewed the investigation of this charge of employment discrimination and all supplemental information furnished. Based upon this review, we agree with the determination issued by our field office and hereby issue a final determination that the evidence obtained during the investigation does not establish a violation of the statute. Therefore, the Commission dismisses and terminates its administrative processing of this charge. As the charge alleged a Title VII violation, this is notice that if the Charging Party wishes to pursue this matter further, (s)he may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court against the Respondent(s) named above within 90 days of receipt of this Determination. IF CHARGING PARTY DECIDES TO SUE, CHARGING PARTY MUST DO SO WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS DETERMINATION; OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST. By letter dated March 8, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent were informed that the EEOC's Miami District Director had determined, with respect to Charge No, 150881243, that the "evidence obtained during the investigation [did) not establish a violation of the statute," The letter further advised: If the Charging Party does not request a review of this determination by March 22, 1989 this determination will become final the following day, the processing of this charge will be complete, and the charge will be dismissed. (This letter will be the only letter of dismissal and the only notice of the Charging Party's right to sue sent by the Commission.) FOLLOWING DISMISSAL, THE CHARGING PARTY MAY ONLY PURSUE THIS MATTER FURTHER BY FILING SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT(S) NAMED IN THE CHARGE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DISMISSAL. Therefore, in the event a request for review is not made, if a suit is not filed by June 21, 1989 the Charging Party's right to sue will be lost. Petitioner did not request review of the District Director's determination in Case No. 150881243. Therefore, this determination became final on March 23, 1989. On May 5, 1989, Respondent's Personnel Officer, William P. Fritchman, sent Petitioner a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, directing Petitioner to report to work immediately. The letter was mailed to P.O. Box 22- 2825, Hollywood, Florida 33022. The body of the letter provided as follows: This letter is to notify you that your tax auditor II position in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is ready for you to return to work. Your return to work will be effective immediately upon your receipt of this letter. The Department of Revenue agreed to your request for a leave of absence without pay for 12 months or until EEOC in Miami had concluded its investigation of your EEOC charges, numbers 150-88-1234 [sic] and 150-87-1115. As you know, EEOC has now concluded its investigations and issued its findings in both cases. The Department considers the reason for granting the leave of absence to be expired. Please contact Mr. Bill Hammock, Chief of Audit Activity or Mr. Howard Maxwell, Field Audit Supervisor, immediately upon receipt of this letter concerning your intentions regarding your actual reporting to work in Fort Lauderdale. Their phone number is (904) 488-0310. Your immediate supervisor will be Ms. Mary Jane Myscich. Please report to her concerning any necessary details surrounding your reporting to work. If you do not contact either of the above individuals as instructed in this letter within three workdays from the date you receive this letter, the Department will consider that you have been on unauthorized leave without pay for that three workday period. Such unauthorized leave will be considered to be abandonment of position and a resignation from the Department of Revenue as outlined under Rules 22A- 7.010(2) and 22A-8.002(5). Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. Efforts to deliver the letter to Petitioner were unsuccessful. It therefore was subsequently returned to Fritchman as "unclaimed." By letter dated May 7, 1989, but not mailed until May 10, 1989, Petitioner requested "an extension of leave without pay status for six additional months."/1 In support of his request, Petitioner erroneously stated the following in the letter: Findings and conclusions of both EEOC Charge Nos.:150871115 dated 5/13/87 and 150881243 are as EEOC has informed you are rendered but not final. The former charge is still under appeal. Petitioner's May 7, 1989, letter, as well as the envelope in which it had been sent, reflected that Petitioner's current mailing address was 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. Accordingly, on May 12, 1989, utilizing a next- day delivery service, Fritchman sent to that address the following letter informing Petitioner of the denial of his leave request: I am in receipt of your letter sent May 10, 1989 to Mr. Bedonie. In your letter you request the Department to seek an extension of your leave without pay for an additional six months. For the reasons expressed in my letter to you dated May 5, 1989, copy attached, your approved leave of absence is concluded. Under the written agreement between you and the Department the two EEOC investigations have concluded; therefore the reason for your leave no longer exists. A copy of my letter to you dated May 5, 1989 is attached to this letter and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. If you have already received a copy of that letter, then your return to work is effective on that date of your receipt. You are expected to resume your duties as a Tax Auditor II. Please contact me at (904) 488-2635 if you have any questions concerning this matter. The next-day delivery service unsuccessfully sought to deliver this letter and attachment to Petitioner at 8311 Dundee Terrace, Miami Lakes, Florida 33316. On May 18, 1989, the letter and attachment were returned to Fritchman. Later that same day, Fritchman attempted to contact Petitioner by telephone, but was unable to reach him. As of May 18, 1989, Petitioner had not yet returned to work, notwithstanding that he had not received authorization to be absent at any time subsequent to the expiration of the leave he had been granted pursuant to the May, 1988, memorandum of understanding and agreement. In view of Petitioner's failure to report to work, Fritchman sent to Petitioner's Hollywood post office box a letter dated May 19, 1989, informing Petitioner that, because he had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays, he was deemed to have abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. Fritchman further explained in the letter as follows: You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 under the terms of your agreement with the Department. You were therefore on unauthorized leave without pay effective May 11, 1989 or on receipt of the May 5, 1989 letter, whichever occurred first. You have not reported to work as agreed in the May 11, 1988 agreement. You are not entitled to rely on a unilateral request for an extension of leave without reporting to work. Rule 22A-8.002(5)(b), F.A.C. states: "If an employee's request for leave is disapproved and the employee takes unauthorized leave, the agency head shall place the employee on leave without pay and after an unauthorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall consider the employee to have abandoned the position and resigned from the Career Service." You did not report to work on May 11, 1989 nor any day after that. The Department considers you have been on unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays. The Department considers that effective certainly no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 1989 you have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. The Department's records will indicate that this is a voluntary resignation from employment with the Department. It is this determination that Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service which is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his Tax Auditor II position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1989. 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 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioners' layoffs from employment by the Respondent were lawful and if not, what remedies should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that their positions were recommended for transfer from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. On July 1, 2001, the Petitioners' positions were transferred from Career Service to Select Exempt Service. Prior to Special Legislative Session C of 2001, the Department's Office of Prevention and Victim Services consisted of 94 positions, organized into four bureaus: the Office of Victim Services; the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services; the Prevention Office; and the Intensive Learning Alternative Program. During Special Legislative Session C, the Florida Legislature passed Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2-C, which reduced appropriations for state government for fiscal year 2001-2002. This special appropriations bill was approved by the Governor on December 13, 2001, and was published as Chapter 2001- 367, Laws of Florida. As a result of Chapter 2001-367, 77 positions were cut from the Office of Prevention and Victim Services budget entity. The appropriations detail for the reduction from the legislative appropriations system database showed that the reduction of positions was to be accomplished by eliminating the Intensive Learning Alternative Program, which consisted of 19 positions; eliminating the Office of Victim Services, which consisted of 15 positions; eliminating the Office of Partnership and Volunteer Services, which consisted of 23 positions; and by cutting 20 positions from the Office of Prevention. Seventeen positions remained. Immediately after conclusion of the Special Session, the Department began the process of identifying which positions would be cut. A workforce transition team was named and a workforce transition plan developed to implement the workforce reduction. The workforce reduction plan included a communications plan for dealing with employees; an assessment of the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the residual program; a plan for assessment of employees, in terms of comparative merit; and a placement strategy for affected employees. Gloria Preston, Stephen Reid and Carol Wells were Operations and Management Consultant II's and worked in the Partnership and Volunteer Services Division. According to the budget detail from Special Session C, all of the positions in this unit were eliminated. Titus Tillman was an Operations and Management Consultant II and worked in the Prevention and Monitoring division. According to the budget detail provided from Special Session C, 20 of the positions in this unit were eliminated. On December 7, 2001, the Department notified Petitioners that effective January 4, 2002, each of their positions were eliminated due to the Florida Legislature's reduction of staffing in a number of Department program areas during the special session. Petitioners were provided with information regarding what type of assistance the Department would provide. Specifically, the notices stated that the employees would be entitled to the right of a first interview with any state agency for a vacancy to which they may apply, provided they are qualified for the position; and that they could seek placement through the Agency for Workforce Innovation. The notice also provided information regarding leave and insurance benefits, and identified resources for affected employees to seek more clarification or assistance. At the time Petitioners were notified that their positions were being eliminated, Florida Administrative Code Rules 60K-17.001 through 60K-17.004 remained in effect. These rules required agencies to determine the order of layoff by calculating retention points, based upon the number of months of continuous employment in a career service position, with some identified modifications. However, by the express terms of the "Service First" Legislation passed in the regular session of 2001, the career service rules identified above were to be repealed January 1, 2002, unless otherwise readopted. § 42, Ch. 2001-43, Laws of Fla. Consistent with the legislative directive new rules had been noticed and were in the adoption process. On January 4, 2002, each of the Petitioners were laid off due to the elimination of their positions. At the time the layoff became effective, new rules regarding workforce reductions had been adopted. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60K-33, effective January 2, 2002, did not allow for the "bumping" procedure outlined in Rule 60K-17.004. Instead, it required the Department to appoint a workforce transition team for overseeing and administering the workforce reduction; assess the positions to be deleted and the mission and goals of the remaining program after the deletion of positions; identify the employees and programs or services that would be affected by the workforce reduction and identify the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees would need to carry out the remaining program. The workforce transition team was required under one of the new rules to consider the comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience of each employee, and consider which employees would best enable the agency to advance its mission. Although the Department created a workforce reduction plan and Career Service Comparative Merit Checklist, it did not complete a checklist for any of the Petitioners because it had previously reclassified their positions as Selected Exempt Service. No checklist is expressly required under Rule 60L-33. While no checklist was completed on the Selected Exempt Service employees, each employee in the Office of Prevention and Victim Services was assessed based on the positions remaining and the mission of the Department in order to determine which employees to keep and which to lay off. Of the 17 remaining positions, the Department considered the legislative intent with respect to the elimination of programs and the individuals currently performing the job duties that were left. It also evaluated the responsibilities remaining, which included overseeing the funding of statewide contracts and grants. The Department also considered which employees should be retained based upon their ability to absorb the workload, their geographic location, and their skill set. The Department determined that the employees selected for the remaining positions were the strongest in their field, had fiscal management and programmatic experience, and were best equipped to undertake the workload. At the time of the layoff, Petitioners were each long- serving, well-qualified and highly rated employees of the State of Florida. Each was prepared to move in order to retain employment. In April 2002, AFSCME Florida Public Employees 79, AFL- CIO (AFSCME), filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) against the Departments of Management Services and Juvenile Justice. AFSCME alleged that the Department failed to bargain in good faith over the layoff of Department employees. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, effective June 28, 2002. The settlement agreement required the Department to provide timely notice to AFSCME of impending layoffs, bargain over the impact of workforce reductions, and provide assistance for employees who were laid off between December 31, 2001, and January 4, 2002, but who had not attained other full-time Career Service employment. There is no evidence the Petitioners in this case were members of AFSCME. Nor is there any evidence that the Department failed to assist Petitioners in seeking new employment. In July of 2003, the First District Court of Appeal decided the case of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), wherein the court held that employees whose employee classifications were changed from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service must be afforded a clear point of entry to challenge the reclassification of their positions. The Department notified those persons, including Petitioners, whose Career Service positions had been reclassified to Selected Exempt Service, that they had a right to challenge the reclassification. Each of the Petitioners filed a request for hearing regarding their reclassifications, which was filed with the Agency Clerk in August of 2003. However, the petitions were not forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings until May 2007. All four cases were settled with an agreement that their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt Service positions in error, and that they should have been considered Career Service employees at the time their positions were eliminated. Petitioners and the Department also agreed that any challenge by Petitioners to the layoffs would be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Gloria Preston began work for the State of Florida in 1975. Her evaluations showed that she continuously exceeded performance standards, and she had training and experience in managing and monitoring grants and contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, and it is unclear whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Stephen Reid began work for the State of Florida in 1977. He left state government for a short time and returned in 1984. With the exception of his initial evaluation with the Department of Corrections, he has received "outstanding" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Reid has experience in contract creation and management. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Carol Wells began employment with the State of Florida in 1975. Similar to Mr. Reid, all of her evaluations save her first one were at the "exceeds" performance level, and she has experience in writing and managing contracts. However, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points she would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether she was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of her employment with the State. Titus Tillman began employment with the State of Florida in 1993. He was subject to a Corrective Action Plan in May 2000, but received "above average" or "exceeds" performance evaluations. Like the other Petitioners, no evidence was presented regarding how many retention points he would have been awarded under former Rule 60K-17.004, or whether he was in a Career Service position during the entire tenure of his employment with the State. Likewise, no evidence was presented regarding the retention points that were earned by any of the people who were retained by the Department to fill the remaining positions. No evidence was presented regarding the qualifications of those retained employees, in terms of their comparative merit, demonstrated skills, and experience in the program areas the Department would continue to implement.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the petitions for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 5th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Lezlie A. Griffin, Esquire Melissa Ann Horwitz, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
