The Issue Whether the suspension of the Petitioner Nelson was based on just cause.
Findings Of Fact Allen T. Nelson, Petitioner, was employed by the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida, as a Career Service employee Custodial Worker in the Physical Plant Division. During a three and a quarter month period of time the official attendance record disclosed 20 attendance deficiencies ranging from 15 minutes tardy to unauthorized absences for a full day. The employee had received an oral reprimand on July 8, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance; a written reprimand on July 29, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance and on September 29, 1977 was advised that his probationary period as a Groundskeeper II was unsatisfactory because of his attendance record. Because his probation was unsatisfactory, he was returned to his permanent position as a Custodial Worker. Notwithstanding official reprimands as well as counseling from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Earl Davis, and the Personnel representative for the Physical Plant Division, Mr. Danny Busseni, the employee's pattern of poor attendance and tardiness continued. While suggesting that some of his tardiness was caused by transportation problems and some of his absences were caused by family sickness and personal business, the employee was unable to give any clear or convincing reason why his attendance patterns were in any manner excusable. The employee indicated that he felt that the agency had not treated him fairly and this was one of the reasons for his poor attendance. Documentary evidence submitted by the employer confirms the steps of progressive discipline taken against the employee in an effort to improve his attendance record. The Guidelines for Standards of Disciplinary Action promulgated by the University provide that for unsatisfactory attendance the first offense shall result in an oral reprimand, the second offense in a written reprimand and that following a third offense the employee may be suspended for one week or dismissed. 8, All employees were aware of the guidelines which were incorporated in an Employee Handbook, covered in employee orientation sessions as well as being posted in areas where Career Service Employees are employed. Competent substantial evidence exists to sustain the action of the agency and "just cause" for the suspension of the employee is evident.
Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Respondent University of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen T. Nelson 227 N.W. 7th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32611 Ashmun Brown, Esquire 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 9, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner commenced her employment with Respondent in November 1997. On December 9, 2010, Petitioner ceased being employed by Respondent. In her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of "disability" and "retaliation." Exhibit A to the Charge of Discrimination provides as follows: I was employed with Orange County Clerk of Courts since November 1997. During my tenure with Orange County Clerk of Courts, I served as a Supervisor and satisfactorily and/or above satisfactorily performed the essential job duties of my position. Notwithstanding my performance, I was subjected to discrimination based on my handicap and/or disability, as further described below. In 1999 I injured my back while on the job and in 2003 I had surgery for same. I had 2 rods and 4 screws placed in my back. On September 27, 2010, I was on FMLA leave until December 8, 2010, and I requested an extension until December 27, 2010, but it was denied. While out on FMLA leave I had the rods removed from my back, which is why I was not able to return to work on December 9, 2010. The reason I was out of work all this time was a direct result from the workers compensation injury I sustained in 1999. Many of my colleagues that were unable to report to work were provided the opportunity to work from home, however I was not. I feel that I was targeted for termination even though such non-handicapped and/or disabled employee was not subject to any adverse employment action. Based on the foregoing actions of Orange County Clerk of Courts described herein, I believe that I have been discriminated and retaliated against, including my unlawful termination, based on my handicap and/or disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Due to my unlawful termination, I have suffered and continue to suffer severe financial and emotional damages. I am seeking compensation for my lost earnings, my lost earnings capacity, my emotional distress, and for punitive damages because Orange County Clerk of Courts acted with malice and/or reckless disregard for my protected rights. Following the "no cause" determination by FCHR, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief. In her Petition for Relief, Petitioner, when directed to describe the "disputed issues of material fact," noted the following: "Respondent states Complainant abandoned her position. Complainant had vacation time not used on company's books – other employees have/were granted extension of time off – they had no time accrued on books." Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a supervisor in the Division of Records Management. In her role as supervisor, Petitioner, among other duties, was responsible for supervising "a records tech one, two, and three" as well as the person that occupied the position designated as the team "lead." Petitioner's job description lists the following as essential duties and responsibilities of her position: Perform any or all of the duties described below depending upon the Division to which assigned. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related, or a logical assignment to the position. Assign, schedule, review and evaluate the work of subordinates. Assist in various areas of personnel administration to include preparation of employee performance evaluation, conduct of employee action plans, and employee counseling/discipline. Monitor customer assistance to include service counter/courtroom coverage, and provide assistance when appropriate. Coordinate divisional orientation and oversee the training of new employees. Provide ongoing divisional training program to include efficient use of a variety of court software, case tracking, and other computer systems. Maintain time and attendance records and related reports for divisional personnel. Review/approve employee leave requests. Respond to complaints, difficult situations and non-routine inquiries from the public in a professional and timely manner. Resolve problems and answers questions that subordinates are unable to solve. Provide assistance to judicial assistants, judges, and other court personnel. Verify that documents processed through the front counter are distributed properly and in a timely manner. Assist in collecting/analyzing data and prepare associated reports. Inform management of any problems or issues. Establish/maintain effective intra-divisional working relationships where areas of responsibility are shared among divisions. Close out and balance the register when required. Complete end of day audit per Clerk's Cash Control Policy as necessary. Communicate with coworkers, management, staff, the general public, and others in a timely, courteous and professional manner. Conform with and abide by all regulations, policies, work procedures and instructions. Respond promptly when returning telephone calls and replying to correspondence including email and faxes/emails. Act, dress, and behave in a professional manner to reflect a positive image of the Clerk's Office. Fully support the Clerk's Quality Policy and standards of Performance Excellence by delivering exemplary services to both internal and external customers. Provide the utmost in customer service efficiently, effectively, and expeditiously. Develop, implement, and provide tools necessary for staff to collect accurate and useable data for the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS). Utilize available tools to collect necessary information and report daily/weekly Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) data to the Assistant Manager. Perform observations, calculations, and implementation of forms necessary for the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS). Monitor process changes in order to evaluate Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) measurements accordingly. Report these findings to the management team and Special Projects Coordinator for appropriate action. Assist in the preparation and update of the Performance/Productivity Measurement System (MOS) Area Books for the division. Continuously strive to instill Performance Excellence in all functions within the Division through teamwork, customer feedback, and process based management. Throughout her tenure as a supervisor, Petitioner generally received "acceptable" ratings (highest ratings possible) on her annual employee performance appraisals. On June 1, 2009, Petitioner's supervisor, Cindy Startz, noted that Petitioner was viewed as a "great asset" to the office of the Orange County Clerk of Courts. In 1999, Petitioner sustained a work related injury to her back. In reviewing the record, it appears as though Petitioner, sometime in 2003, had surgical rods inserted in her back in order to stabilize her spine. The rods were surgically removed from Petitioner's back on or about December 9, 2010. Prior to her December 2010 back surgery, Petitioner, from August 3, 2010, through August 17, 2010, used two weeks of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for her child. Petitioner's FMLA leave year for the period in question commenced on August 3, 2010. Therefore, for the twelve month period beginning August 3, 2010, Petitioner had twelve weeks of FMLA leave or a maximum of 480 working hours available for use. On or about October 4, 2010, Petitioner submitted to Respondent another request for FMLA leave. This request from Petitioner was for the period September 27, 2010, through October 27, 2010. Petitioner's FMLA leave request for this period was approved by Respondent on November 2, 2010. Petitioner did not return to work on October 28, 2010. She sought and was granted by Respondent a continuation of her FMLA leave through and including December 8, 2010. As of December 8, 2010, Petitioner had exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave for the annual leave period that commenced on August 3, 2010. Several days prior to exhausting her FMLA leave, Petitioner was informed by Respondent that her FMLA leave entitlement for the relevant period would expire on December 8, 2010. In anticipation of the expiration of her FMLA leave entitlement, Petitioner, on or about December 2, 2010, submitted to Respondent a request for leave of absence without pay for the period December 9, 2010, through December 27, 2010. In support of her request for leave of absence, Petitioner provided to Respondent a statement from her orthopedist. According to her orthopedist, Petitioner suffered from chronic low back pain and was "having surgery on 12/9/10 for hardware removal [from her back, and that] [s]he will be out of work from 12/9/10 – 12/27/10, and [these] dates may be adjusted as needed pending [patient] recovery." The orthopedist also noted that for the two to three month period following her surgery, it was anticipated that Petitioner would experience one or two "flare-ups" with her back that would require orthopedic intervention. On December 8, 2010, Petitioner's supervisor, Marlene Muscatello, sent Petitioner an email message regarding Petitioner's request for a leave of absence without pay. The email message provides as follows: Hello Sandra, I received your leave of absence request for December 9 through December 27th. Your request has been reviewed and considered. However, the Records Management division is unable to accommodate your leave of absence request due to the workload burden on the division. Thank you, Marlene On September 6, 2010, Marlene Muscatello became Petitioner's supervisor and division manager for Respondent's Records Management Division. Ms. Muscatello, when considering Petitioner's request for leave of absence, was familiar with the needs of the Records Management Division. In explaining why Petitioner's request for leave of absence was denied, Ms. Muscatello credibly testified that as a result of Petitioner's absence, it was necessary to reassign Petitioner's responsibilities to other employees in the Records Management Division. The employees that were tasked with Petitioner's work functions were required to perform Petitioner's job functions as well as their own. According to Ms. Muscatello, this working arrangement created a hardship on the employees in the Records Management Division. Petitioner disputes that her absence from the office during her FMLA leave period created a hardship on her fellow employees. According to Petitioner, her absence from the office allowed the person serving in the position of tech-three, "to jump in and learn more." Ms. Muscatello generally agrees that Petitioner's absence provided learning opportunities for other employees. However, Ms. Muscatello also notes that while the other employees in the division were taking on new responsibilities associated with Petitioner's absence, the employees were still responsible for performing their regular duties. In addition to the hardship placed on other employees resulting from Petitioner's absence, Ms. Muscatello was also concerned about the uncertainty surrounding when Petitioner would be released by her physician to return to work. Specifically, Ms. Muscatello was concerned about that portion of the physician's statement indicating that December 27, 2010, was only an anticipated release to return to work date and that Petitioner's actual return to work date "may be adjusted as needed pending [patient] recovery." Petitioner contends that because the doctor's statement is "open ended," it was possible that Petitioner could have been released to return to work prior to December 27, 2010. It is precisely the "open ended" nature of the doctor's statement that factored into Ms. Muscatello's decision to deny Petitioner's request for leave without pay. It is clear from the doctor's statement that Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties upon exhaustion of her FMLA leave. In addition to the previously referenced email, Respondent also sent on December 8, 2010, correspondence to Petitioner wherein she was advised of the following: This is to advise you that as of December 8, 2010, your 12 weeks of leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act is exhausted. The State of Florida does not mandate any additional leave rights beyond the federally mandated FMLA and all of your accrued sick and vacation leave has been exhausted. In accordance with our FMLA policy and as is permitted by FMLA regulations, we require all employees on leave to provide notice of their intent to return to work and if returning, a note from their medical provider returning them to their job. The documentation you provided on December 2, 2010, from your physician states that you need to be out of work from December 9th through December 27th. As outlined in the Clerk of Courts Employee Handbook, Section 408, you submitted a request to your division management for a Leave of Absence beyond your FMLA eligibility. Unfortunately your division is unable to approve your request at this time. Clerk of Courts policy states that if you do not return to work following the exhaustion of your FMLA, you will be considered to have voluntarily resigned. When you are released by your physician to return to work, you may apply for available employment opportunities with the Clerk of Courts. We appreciate your service to the Orange County Clerk of Courts and certainly wish you well in the future. If you have any questions you may reach me at 407-836-2302. Information regarding your rights to continue your employee benefits under COBRA will be sent to you separately. Please contact our office to arrange the return of any property belonging to the Clerk of Courts still in your possession (employee ID badge, parking card, keys, etc.) Sincerely, Jacquelyn Clarke, SPHR Sr. Human Resource Generalist In her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges that "[m]any of her colleagues that were unable to report to work were provided the opportunity to work from home, however I was not." The evidence is undisputed that Petitioner never requested of Respondent that she be allowed to work from home. It is illogical to suggest that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by not allowing her to work from home when Petitioner never asked for such an accommodation. There was no evidence presented that other employees were allowed to work from home under circumstances where this option was unilaterally presented to the employees as a proposed accommodation. As previously noted, Petitioner, in her Petition for Relief, alleges that Respondent discriminated against her by not allowing her to use her accrued vacation leave upon exhaustion of her FMLA leave. In comparing the Petition for Relief with the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner, it is the case that Petitioner did not make any reference, express or implied, to unused vacation time in the Charge of Discrimination that was investigated by FCHR. The undersigned has only considered those issues raised in the Charge of Discrimination. During Petitioner's employment with Respondent, the position that she occupied was covered by the Orange County Clerk of Courts Employee Handbook (Handbook). Section 409(E) of the Handbook provides, in part, that "[i]f the employee does not return to work following the conclusion of a family or medical leave, the employee will be considered to have voluntarily resigned." Petitioner signed for and received a copy of the Handbook on February 22, 2000. Section 408 of the Handbook governs requests for leave of absence without pay. This section provides in part that "[l]eave of absence without pay may be granted with manager's approval to eligible employees in instances where unusual or unavoidable circumstances require prolonged absence."
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 finding that Respondent, Orange County Clerk of Courts, did not commit an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, Sandra A. Jones, and denying Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 27th day of June, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Khan abandoned her career service position by failing to report for work, or to apply for and obtain leave for three consecutive days.
Findings Of Fact Olwen B. Khan was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Public Assistance Specialist in the medically needed program in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Khan is Jamaican, and cares for her elderly father. In order to provide for his care, she arranged to go to Jamaica to sell some property there. On March 1, 1988, Ms. Khan requested, and was granted, 32 hours of leave for March 7 through the close of business on March 10, 1988. Ms. Khan had accumulated annual leave and sick leave so that the annual leave requested did not exhaust the leave available to her. Ms. Khan purchased an airline ticket to Jamaica which would have resulted in her return the evening of March 10, 1988. On March 9, 1988, it became clear that Ms. Khan's business could not be concluded by March 10 and she would have to remain in Jamaica a few more days. She was then in Maninbay, Jamaica, where telephone service is not sophisticated. She had to go to the local telephone company office to make an overseas call when a line was available. She did so at approximately 2:45 p.m. on March 9 but when she reached the HRS office, she was placed on hold for an extended period of time. She then terminated the call and attempted to place another call on March 10 but was not able to get through to the HRS office. The evening of the 10th she made a collect call to her home in Fort Lauderdale at about 5:45 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The purpose of the call was to have her daughter request additional leave so she could conclude her business in Jamaica. Ms. Khan's ex-husband answered the phone, which surprised her. He agreed to make the request to the Department for additional leave. The following Tuesday Ms. Khan spoke with her ex- husband again, and he said that the message had been given and the additional leave had been taken care of. In fact, no one ever contacted the Department on Ms. Khan's behalf to explain her failure to report to work on Friday, March 11; Monday, March 14; or Tuesday, March 15, 1988. Ms. Khan's supervisor, Norma Levine, did ask one of Ms. Khan's coworkers if she knew where Ms. Khan was. The coworker, Judy Fiche, did not know. After three days had passed with no word from Ms. Khan, Ms. Levine discussed the matter with her supervisor, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran recommended termination for abandonment of position because no one had heard from Ms. Khan since her approved leave had ended on Thursday, March 10, 1988. A memorandum setting out the facts was prepared for the personnel office, and through the personnel office a certified letter was sent to Ms. Khan on March 17, 1988, informing her that as of the close of business on March 15, 1988, her employment had been terminated for abandonment of her position. When Ms. Khan did return on March 16, she was informed that her position had been terminated. She attempted to see Mr. Moran that day but he was unavailable. She eventually did speak with him but was unsatisfied with his response and ultimately spoke with the personnel officer for HRS District X, Mr. Durrett, on March 30, 1988. Mr. Durrett maintained HRS's position that Mr. Khan had abandoned her job and was unmoved by her explanation that she had been out of the country to take care of a family problem and had thought that her message about needing additional leave had been relayed to the Department. When Ms. Khan was first employed by the Department, she signed a receipt for an employee handbook setting out its policies. The policy on absences requires that an employee who does not report to work notify the employee's supervisor by 8:30 a.m., and if that supervisor is not available, the employee is to notify another supervisor that the employee will not be in to work and state why. The employee performance appraisal for Ms. Khan completed in November 1988, was the last appraisal before her termination. It shows that she was regarded as achieving prescribed performance standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that under Rule 22A- 7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Olwen B. Khan abandoned her position by being absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays. DONE AND RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The burden of all proposed facts contained in Ms. Khan's proposed finding of fact have been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Lawrence D. Zietz, Esquire 8181 West Broward Boulevard #380 Plantation, Florida 33324 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District on January 15, 1990, as a Secretary III, Classified. She was assigned as secretary to Margaret Lewis, Director of Vocational Education. Classified employees are distinguished from certified employees who are teachers or administrators who hold teaching certificates. Respondent's duties included typing, handling and filing documents and correspondence, keeping budget and payroll records, copying and receiving incoming phone calls to the Department of Vocational Education. For approximately six months, Respondent and her supervisor had a good working relationship. Both were new to the Brevard County School District, and Margaret Lewis felt that together they could make positive changes in the unit. Respondent's personnel evaluation dated March 15, 1990, rates her in the "exceptional high" range in every category, with the highest possible rating being given in the categories, "work attitude," "cooperativeness," "personal appearance" and "tardiness." Something happened in the summer of 1990 around the time that the unit was moving from its office in Rockledge to the new district building in the Brevard County Governmental Center at Viera. The relationship between the two women rapidly deteriorated, a phenomenon observed by co-workers and the assistant superintendents, including Margaret Lewis' supervisor, Daniel Scheuerer. The circumstances were confusing, even to Jerry Copeland, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. None could pinpoint the cause of the rift, although both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Lewis offered their own theories. Ms. Cooper described her supervisor arriving at work one morning crying and upset over some domestic situation. She went into Ms. Lewis' office with her and urged her to go home. Ms. Lewis eventually did leave and was gone for several days. Upon her return, Ms. Cooper felt that Ms. Lewis was very cool toward her and began communicating with her through notes or through messages to other staff. Ms. Lewis believes Ms. Cooper's work attitude changed radically after she was passed over for a secretarial position in the School Board attorney's office. On two occasions, Ms. Cooper approached Abraham Collinsworth, the Superintendent, with concerns she had about Margaret Lewis. Mr. Collinsworth referred the matter back to Dr. Scheuerer, Ms. Lewis' supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services. Dr. Scheuerer told the superintendent that he had a very disruptive situation with loud conversations and people not feeling good about each other. During the several months period, July through September 1990, Dr. Scheuerer met with the women individually and together. Ms. Cooper complained that Ms. Lewis required her to make too many copies of things, that she communicated with her through yellow stickers, "post-it" notes, and that she, Ms. Lewis, would not tell her where she was going. Dr. Scheuerer counselled Ms. Cooper to adapt to her supervisor's way of doing things and also made suggestions to Ms. Lewis of ways to improve communications, for example, allowing her secretary to keep the calendar. The meeting he had with both women together was very unpleasant. It was obvious that there was a lot of hostility and animosity, tension and stress between the two. Generally, however, Ms. Lewis conducted herself in a professional manner. Ms. Cooper kept a tape recorder that she used to play subliminal tapes. Ms. Lewis felt that she was using the tape recorder to tape their conversations. Ms. Lewis felt that Ms. Cooper spent an inordinate amount of time away from her desk and abused break periods. Ms. Cooper said that she was making deliveries or copying. Ms. Lewis begin writing notes of their confrontations in order to avoid getting emotionally involved. This seemed to inflame Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper's reaction to direction was often either a sullen shrug or a verbal retort. Ms. Cooper felt Ms. Lewis gave her conflicting or serial requests. She also kept notes of their interactions. Early on the morning of October 8, 1990, several employees in the area of Ms. Cooper's and Ms. Lewis' office overheard a verbal confrontation between the two. Ms. Cooper had her voice raised and when Ms. Lewis asked her not to talk so loud, she replied she wanted everyone to hear. It was obvious to Daniel Scheuerer, who also overheard part of the confrontation, that Ms. Cooper was the one doing the yelling. On October 9, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Ms. Cooper the following written reprimand: This is a formal letter of reprimand as a result of your unacceptable behavior on the morning of October 8, 1990. It is being issued as a result of your intentional (you stated that you wanted to be heard by everyone when I asked you to lower your voice) vociferous and disruptive shouting at me in your work area and the disrespect which you displayed toward me as your supervisor after I had made reasonable requests. This type of behavior is unacceptable, disturbing and disruptive to the work effort of the department and the entire area. This is to inform you that any similar outburst of this matter will result in your immediate termination. CC: Personnel File (Petitioner's exhibit No. 5) Sometime around the end of September, or early October, Karen Denbo, the district Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, had a secretarial position open that would have been a lateral transfer (same level, same pay) for Janice Cooper. She applied, and Dr. Scheuerer asked Ms. Denbo to interview Ms. Cooper. Ms. Denbo asked if he was telling her to hire Ms. Cooper. Dr. Scheuerer was given the impression by both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Denbo that they had misgivings about Ms. Cooper performing in a position requiring a lot of technical filings for which there would be no training. Ms. Cooper was not offered the transfer and no other efforts were made to find Ms. Cooper alternative employment. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Janice Cooper a memorandum titled "Job Expectations." It informed her that her supervisor had concerns regarding job performance, relationships with other employees, work attitude and failure to follow administrative directives. It directed her to take specified times for break and it stated she must be accurate, careful, effective and courteous. It stated that her performance was not satisfactory and warned that "failure to make necessary adjustments will result in additional disciplinary action." (Petitioner's exhibit No. 6) On November 1, 1990, near the end of the work week, Ms. Lewis needed some coping done and could not find Janice Cooper. She filled out a copy request form and put Ms. Cooper's name as the contact person. Ms. Cooper returned and Ms. Lewis asked if the form was completed properly. Ms. Cooper looked at it and then replied, "It if says what you want it to say, then its alright." After Ms. Lewis returned to her office, Ms. Cooper followed her in and said if she was going to use her name she needed to get her permission first. As Ms. Lewis began writing down Ms. Cooper's comments, Ms. Cooper reached across the desk, knocking off pencils and paper, and tore the paper out of her hand. Ms. Lewis reached for the phone and asked Dr. Scheuerer to come immediately. Ms. Cooper left and did not return until November 5th, after the weekend. In the meantime, Ms. Lewis met with Dr. Scheuerer; the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Jerry Copeland; and the Labor Relations Director, Bob Barrett. Upon Ms. Cooper's return to work, Ms. Lewis called her in to her office. Bob Barrett was also present. She was given this letter: November 5, 1990 Ms. Janice Cooper, Secretary Vocational Education Department Dear Ms. Cooper: This is to inform you that your employment with the School Board of Brevard County is terminated effective immediately, November 5, 1990. The reason for this termination is your unsatisfactory performance. You have been counseled and warned on several occasions regarding the need to improve your performance. On October 26, 1990, you were provided a memorandum which outlined your responsibilities and gave you direction for improving your performance. You were notified that your performance was unsatisfactory and that your failure to make the necessary adjustments would bring additional disciplinary action. Since October 26, 1990, your performance has continued to deteriorate to the point that your unwillingness to make the effort required to function as a Secretary III necessitates this action. Prior to your departure from the work site today, you should turn in any keys or other such School Board material which was issued to you to uses in your job. Sincerely, Margaret Lewis Director, Vocational Education (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) (emphasis in original) When asked if she had anything to say, Ms. Cooper made no response and refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter. She was directed to collect her personal items and to leave the office. With guidance from the State Department of Education, the Brevard County School District has a policy of discipline of all employees which it calls, "NEAT." The acronym stands for the right to "Notice," followed by "Explanation," followed by "Assistance," within a reasonable "Time." If the deficiencies are not corrected at the end of this process, the employee may be terminated. The School Board's adopted rule 6Gx5-7.05, provides in pertinent part: Suspension/Dismissal. A certificated employee may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the work year pursuant to provisions set forth in Florida Statute 230.33(7)(h), 231.36(4)(6) and the Rules of the Educational Practices Commission. A classified employee may be dismissed for cause. The immediate supervisor shall suspend the employee and notify him/her in writing of the recommendation for dismissal, stating the cause. Termination Date. The effective date of any termination of employment or suspension shall be the last day on which the employee works. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) In addition to the above, the School Board's administrative staff acknowledge an employee's right to a pre-termination process that gives her an opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. The record in this proceeding establishes that Janice Cooper was insubordinate on several occasions. She yelled at her supervisor, disrupting the workplace; she refused to follow instructions or was insolent; and finally, she virtually assaulted her supervisor when she grabbed the paper and tore it up. There is little specific evidence, however, of her poor job performance. Her only evaluation during the ten months of her employment was exceptionally positive. The "Job Expectations" memorandum was provided four days before the incident leading to Ms. Cooper's separation, which incident was plainly insubordination or misconduct, but not "poor job performance." The administrative staff make no apparent distinction between "termination" and "suspension" as both are separations from employment; and they do not view Ms. Lewis' letter, therefore, as a violation of the policy described in paragraph 18 above. Practically, there is no distinction, as no separation is final until the Board takes its action. In the meantime, the employee is no longer on the payroll. In Ms. Cooper's case, the time off of the payroll has been two years, most of which time has been the result of circumstances beyond the control of the School Board. Neither before, nor immediately after her termination by Margaret Lewis, was Janice Cooper offered reasonable opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. She was given the letter and asked if she had a response. The letter states that termination is a fait accompli. She did not respond, and was told to leave. No evidence was presented as to the need to take immediate action. Both the district and Ms. Cooper could have benefited from a brief cooling off period; the district, by taking the time to draft a letter reflecting the proper cause for its action; and Ms. Cooper, by having an opportunity to reflect on her employment jeopardy and to prepare a response. The district presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of cause to terminate Ms. Cooper. It did not, however, prove that the cause was "poor performance." For that reason, and because the employee was not offered a reasonable opportunity to respond, the termination procedure was fatally flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Brevard County enter its final order reinstating Janice Cooper to full back pay and benefits from November 9, 1990, until and including October 7, 1992, and approving her termination effective October 7, 1992. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January 1993. MARY CLARK 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 20th day of January 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 11. With the exception of the October 26, 1990 memo, the facts proposed here are rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Poor performance was not proven, nor was it proven that Respondent was taping conversations, rather than playing her own "subliminal tapes." Adopted in substance in Paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there was some mention of a grievance, but no evidence of what this process was or whether it was actually filed and withdrawn. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to unsatisfactory job performance, which is distinguished, according to the School Board's witness, from "insubordination" or misconduct. (Transcript, p. 70-71) Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Adopted in Paragraph 18. 4-8. Rejected as argument or conclusions, or summary of testimony rather than discrete findings of fact. Some of those arguments and conclusions have been adopted in the conclusions of law herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building E 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire Suite 58 3815 North Highway One Cocoa, Florida 32926 Abraham L. Collinsworth, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2006.
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: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that 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 UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. 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 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact John Stewart is a correctional officer with permanent status. He filed a timely appeal on his five-day suspension with the Career Service Commission. Franklin Ashe, Assistant Food Service Director, was Stewart's immediate supervisor and rater at the time in question. Stewart had transferred to kitchen duties shortly after his initial rating as a Correctional Officer I in March, 1976. Ashe prepared Stewart's first rating as a Correctional Officer I working in the kitchen as a steward on April 25, 1977. At that time Stewart had worked in the southwest unit kitchen since the and of March, 1977. His duties in the southwest unit kitchen were direction and supervision of inmate cooks and cook's helpers. Prior to his transfer, Stewart's duties were to take the noon meal to the prisoners working on work details outside the prison. However, Ashe had also supervised Stewart prior to his transfer to the southwest unit kitchen. His performance of his initial duties were presumably satisfactory because this was apparently a good assignment and Stewart performed these duties until March, 1977. The benefits of this job included no shift work and weekends off. In late March, 1977, Stewart who was active in a union organizational effort received oral warning from D. E. Carter concerning passing out union material on the premises of the prison. Shortly thereafter, Stewart who was an alternate to the bargaining talks, was moved from his duties serving prisoners on work detail and assigned to shift work. Shortly after that he was moved to the southwest unit kitchen. The evaluation involved in this case followed shortly thereafter. Ashe's evaluation of Stewart was delivered to Ashe by one of the Correctional Officers II or sergeants who were assigned duties in the kitchen. Ashe was displeased about the rating and asked the sergeant about speaking to Ashe. A meeting occurred between Ashe and Stewart in Ashe's office shortly after Stewart came to work on May 23, 1977. This meeting lasted about five minutes. Stewart states that he asked Ashe about the rating and Ashe replied that it was self-explanatory and that he just called the facts the way they were. Beyond this Ashe gave no explanation of the basis for his rating of Stewart. Ashe does not deny this, but alleges that Stewart was abusive and insubordinate by stating that he (Ashe) was full of shit. Ashe then attempted to terminate the meeting by leaving. Ashe stated that Stewart blocked his way out of the door and told him that he was a baby not a man and that if they met on the street, Ashe had better move over. Stewart denies having used vulgar or threatening language with Ashe, but admits that be did stand in the door way and did say Ashe was a baby not a man. Stewart never received an explanation of his rating. Based upon the foregoing Stewart was suspended for five days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer finds that good cause existed for disciplinary action against Stewart. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Gearey, Esquire Department of Offender Rehabilitation 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Walter Thomas, Esquire Voyager Building 2255 Phyllis Street Jacksonville, Florida Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent, Lavern W. Burroughs, began work with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) on July 1, 1987, and that she was not present for work on July 22, 25, or 26 of 1988. Between March 3, 1988, and July 7, 1988, Ms. Burroughs, a clerk typist, was absent on fourteen occasions. Each time "LW" was entered beside her name on an attendance and leave sheet. "LW" is used when an employee has used up all sick and annual leave, but is nevertheless authorized to take leave. The designation LW means leave without pay, but it does not indicate whether leave was authorized or unauthorized. In December of 1987, Ms. Burroughs had received a "conference letter," HRS' Exhibit No. 1, after discussing her attendance problems with Mr. Weston and his immediate supervisor, Mr. Mathis. On April 15, 1988, Mr. Weston sent her a letter in 4 which he reprimanded her for being absent without leave. HRS' Exhibit No. 2. The letter stated: It is hoped that you will view this disciplinary measure in a constructive manner and there will not be a recurrence of this nature. However, you are cautioned that further offenses of this standard will result in more stringent disciplinary measure of a ten (10) days suspension without pay up to dismissal. Mr. Mathis testified that the ordinary practice, if petitioner's absenteeism had been handled as a career service matter, would have seen a ten (10) day suspension as HRS' next response, in the event of another unauthorized absence; and that dismissal would not have occurred, unless the ten (10) day suspension failed to cure the problem. On Thursday, July 14, 1988, Ms. Burroughs went to work, as it turned out, for the last time. The next morning she called in, shortly after 9:00 o'clock, to report that she had received notice of judicial proceedings designed to foreclose on her house. Unable to reach Mr. Weston, she asked for his supervisor, Mr. Mathis. Unable to reach him, she spoke to Ms. Evan Gibson, Mr. Mathis' secretary, and told her that she would not be coming to work. Ms. Gibson said she would relay the message. Ms. Burroughs left for Georgia in an effort to obtain money from a cousin with which to retain a lawyer to represent her in the foreclosure proceedings. The next Monday, July 18, 1988, Ms. Burroughs' daughter, Sheronda, telephoned HRS' Jacksonville offices. Apparently she spoke to Mr. Weston when she reported that Ms. Burroughs had trouble with her eye. On July 20, 1988, Ms. Burroughs telephoned herself. Again unable to reach Mr. Weston, she ended up telling Ms. Gibson that her eye was running and painful. Also on July 20, 1988, she visited the Riverside Clinic, received a prescription for erythromycin, and filled it that day. A nurse filled out a form employee's medical excuse saying that Ms. Burroughs had been under the care of a doctor at the clinic "and may return to work on 7/21/88." Joint Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Weston has never denied an employee's request for sick leave. Ms. Burroughs had been granted sick leave on more than three occasions and had produced a doctor's statement on each occasion. On Thursday, July 21, 1988, Ms. Burroughs called and spoke to Mr. Weston. In a telephone conversation that lasted perhaps two minutes, she told him about the problem with her eye, and also spoke to him about the threatened foreclosure. She did not say when she would return to work, but it was clear that she was not coming in that day. After Mr. Weston responded, "Okay," his only contribution to the conversation, Ms. Burroughs said goodbye and hung up. She did not explicitly ask for leave, even as she had never done before. Her eye stopped running on July 25, 1988, a Monday. On July 26, 1988, Ms. Burroughs set out for work, having spent, she testified, all her money, except for a quarter she had with her, on gasoline, for transportation to and from work that week. When her car overheated on 1-495 she was obliged to cut her journey short. She used her only quarter to telephone her brother's house, where a sister also lived. She asked this sister to call work to tell them what had happened. Instead, a friend, Wanda Stewart, learned the circumstances from Ms. Burroughs' sister, and made the telephone call to report why petitioner would not be in that day. Anna Williams, who worked in Mr. Weston's unit last summer, took the call. Because he was not in the office, she relayed the message to Mr. Mathis' secretary. When Ms. Burroughs' called herself, on July 27, 1988, she was informed she no longer had a job.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Prior to her termination on July 18, 1983, petitioner, Pacharee K. Hasper, was a member of the Senior Management Service employed as Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis with the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Employment Security. She held this position for approximately one and a half years and her managerial effectiveness rating was "outstanding". In December of 1982, petitioner's request for maternity leave without pay from March 14, 1983 through July 15, 1983 was approved by her then Division Director, Katie Tucker. By letter dated February 28, 1983, Ronald Villella, the new Division Director, advised petitioner that her request for maternity leave was confirmed and that "we will search for a suitable position to which you can be appointed upon completion of the leave period. If successful, you will be returned from leave of absence to the new assignment. If a suitable position cannot be located, you will be returned from leave of absence for one workday and then separated from the Senior Management Service in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12. To avoid any unauthorized overlap in the Chief of Research and Analysis position, should you require use of sick leave during the maternity leave, we are requesting Secretary Orr to authorize a 30-day overlap in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.06(A) and Chapter 22K-9 F.A.C." Director Villella had previously told petitioner that he needed her position for a person who had helped with the Governor's campaign. When petitioner returned to work from her maternity leave on Monday, July 18, 1983, she was not permitted to go to her prior office and was told that she would be terminated at the end of that day. Thereafter, she received a letter dated July 18, 1983, from Director Villella, reading in pertinent part as follows: "We have not been successful in locating a suitable position to which you could he appointed upon the expiration of your leave of absence. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of my letter to you dated February 28, 1983 (copy enclosed), you will be separated from the Senior Management Service in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12, F.A.C., effective 5:00 p.m. July 18, 1983. By copy of this letter, I am requesting our personnel officer to pay you for any unused annual leave in accordance with Senior Management Rule 22SM-1.12, F.A.C." Petitioner has filed a petition with the Department of Labor and Employment Security requesting a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and seeking reinstatement to her position as Chief of the Bureau of Research and Analysis with back pay and interest.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was an employee of the state of Florida employed by the Department. On May 10, 1991 the Petitioner was arrested and placed in isolation without any outside contact except in the evenings by phone. By letter dated May 15, 1991, mailed to Petitioner's home address, the Department advised Petitioner that having been absence from work for three consecutive days without authorized leave of absence the Department assumed that the Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from career services. Additionally, this letter advised the Petitioner that he had 20 calendar days from receipt of the notice to petition the State Personnel Director for a review of the facts to determine if the circumstances constituted abandonment of position. The return receipt for this letter appears to be signed by Vickie Carpenter but does not indicate the date it was signed by her. A copy of this same letter was mailed by the Department to the Petitioner at the jail but no return receipt was ever received by the Department. However, the Petitioner testified at having received the letter around May 23, 1991. On May 23, 1991 the Respondent was released from jail and was available for work beginning on May 24, 1991. However, the Department had already terminated the Petitioner based on abandonment of position. By letter dated June 6, 1991 the Petitioner requested the State Personnel Director to review his case. By letter dated June 12, 1991 and received by Petitioner on June 14, 1991, the Department again advised Petitioner that the Department assumed that he had abandoned his position and again outlined the review process. On June 20, 1991 the Secretary of the Department of Administration entered an Order Accepting Petition and Assignment to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated August 27, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that it was withdrawing the action of abandonment of position, and that he was reinstated to his position effective August 30, 1991. However, by letter dated August 29, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that he was to report for work on September 3, 1991 rather than August 30, 1991, and that he was to report to Ft. Myers rather than to his old job in Punta Gorda. Additionally, Mark M. Geisler, Subdistrict Administrator, the author of the letter, advised the Petitioner that since the issue of back pay had been discussed with DeLuccia it was best for Petitioner to contact him in that regard. Petitioner was reinstated by the Department on September 3, 1991. Petitioner did not at any time agree to forego any back pay in order for the Department to reinstate him. The Petitioner has never received any back pay for the period beginning Friday, May 24, 1991 (the day he was able and ready to return to work) through Monday, September 2, 1991 (the day before Petitioner returned to work). Petitioner's wife, Vickie L. Carpenter was, at all times material to this proceeding, employed by the state of Florida, and because she and Petitioner both were employed by the state of Florida their health insurance was furnished by the state of Florida at no cost to them. Upon the Department terminating the Petitioner his wife was required to pay for her health insurance until Petitioner was reinstated on September 3, 1991. Petitioner was unable to report to work during the period from May 10, 1991 through May 23, 1991, inclusive, due to being incarcerated, and was on unauthorized leave of absence during this period. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any back pay for this period, and so stipulated at the hearing. However, Petitioner is entitled to receive back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that the Department was aware of Petitioner's incarceration and that it was not Petitioner's intent to abandon his position with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a Final Order (1) confirming the action of the Department that Petitioner did not abandon his position with the Department, and (2) reimbursing Petitioner for back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive, and for any other benefit that Petitioner was entitled to during this period, including, but not limited to, health insurance benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Carpenter 1669 Flamingo Blvd. Bradenton, FL 34207 Susan E. Vacca, Qualified Representative Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 1415 Punta Gorda, FL 33951-1415 Augustus D. Aikens, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Robert B. Williams, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 06085 Fort Myers, FL 33906
