The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Health ("Department"), acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 (the "ITB") to Intervenor Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. ("Quest").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On July 10, 2012, the Department issued the ITB. The ITB solicited bids for a three-year contract for the provision of clinical laboratory services to the Department and county health departments. The ITB estimated that the winning bidder will perform approximately 861,000 tests annually, which will produce sales of $9.3 million per year. Bids were received from four vendors: LabCorp, Quest, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. The bids were opened on August 17, 2012. The Department found all four bids responsive. The ITB specified that the Department would make a single award based on the grand total of pricing for specified "core tests" for the initial three-year term and for a contingent three-year renewal term. Quest was the lowest bidder, and LabCorp was the second lowest bidder. The sum of Quest's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term for the relevant laboratory services was $29,555,864.96. The sum of LabCorp's core test pricing for the original three-year term and the contingent three-year renewal term was $36,059,437.52. Section 3.2 of the ITB provided definitions pertinent to the bid, including the following: Mandatory Requirements or Minimum Requirements -- means that the Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by Respondent.1/ The use of shall, must, or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this solicitation indicates compliance is mandatory. Failure to meet mandatory requirements will cause rejection of the bid or termination of the Contract/Purchase Order. Minor Irregularity -- used in the context of this solicitation and prospective Contract/Purchase Order, indicates a variation from the proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the response, or give the respondent an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department.2/ Section 4.15 of the ITB, titled "Responsive and Responsible," provided as follows: The Bidder shall complete and submit the following mandatory information or documentation as a part of the Bid Package. Any response which does not contain the information below shall be deemed non- responsive. Licensures-- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, Certificate of Compliance and State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Clinical Laboratory License Staffing Plan Attachment I Bid Price Pages-- Attachment III Initial Term & Renewal term (including balance of line minimum volume discount and phlebotomy services Required Certifications, Attachment VI The ITB provided no further clarification regarding the contents of the "Staffing Plan" beyond directing the bidders to "Attachment I" to the ITB. Attachment I was titled "Specifications of Clinical Laboratory Services" and contained six pages of additional specifications regarding services included in the bidders' prices, contractor liability, minimum tasks to be completed by the winning bidder, deliverables, and other requirements. Attachment I included the following specifications regarding staffing: Staffing Levels Each prospective offeror shall include its proposed staffing for technical, administrative, and clerical support including but not limited to a Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff and statewide field representatives. The bidder shall provide hourly rate pricing, as an option to the contract, for an on-site Phlebotomist. The successful offeror shall maintain an adequate administrative organizational structure and support staff sufficient to discharge its contractual responsibilities. In the event the Department determines that the successful bidder's staffing levels do not conform to those promised in the proposal, it shall advise the successful offeror in writing and the successful offeror shall have 30 days to remedy the identified staffing deficiencies. Professional Qualification The successful bidder will be responsible for the staff affiliated with this proposal, insuring that they have the education, any professional licensure or certification which may be required by law, and experience necessary to carry out their duties. Staffing Changes The successful bidder shall staff the project with key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal, which are considered by the Department to be essential to this project. The bidder shall keep the Department notified of key staffing changes that directly impact services related to this solicitation. (Textual emphasis added.) The underscored language required the prospective offerer to include "proposed staffing" and required that the winning bidder staff the project with "key personnel identified in the bidder's proposal." The issue is whether the "Staffing Levels" and "Staffing Changes" provisions quoted above required the bidder to name the specific persons who would fill the "proposed staffing" and "key personnel" positions, or whether it would suffice for a bidder to indicate that it would fill those positions with qualified persons to be named after the bid is awarded. The term "key personnel" is undefined by the ITB. It is unclear from the specifications whether the "key personnel" referenced in "Staffing Changes" is synonymous with the "proposed staffing" referenced in "Staffing Levels." LabCorp interpreted "key personnel" to mean those persons named in the "Staffing Levels" provision: Contract Representative, Quality Control Manager, Staff Pathologist, Project Manager, Technical Support Manager, Technical Support Staff, and statewide field representatives. In its staffing plan, LabCorp provided the names of persons corresponding to each of the "Staffing Levels" positions named in the ITB, including a list of 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons. The staffing plan submitted by Quest stated as follows: Quest Diagnostics has more than adequate staffing and capacity to meet the needs of the Florida Department of Health. Quest Diagnostics employs a Customer Solutions Manager (contract representative), Quality Assurance Manager (quality control manager), Medical Director and Senior Staff Pathologists, Project Manager, Specimen Processing Manager (technical support manager), Lab Manager (technical support staff), and Account Managers (statewide field representatives). Job descriptions for these positions are attached. Following this statement was a series of detailed job descriptions setting forth the qualifications, experience requirements and responsibilities for each of the named positions. Thus, Quest provided the Department with a set of job qualifications corresponding to the "Staffing Levels" provision of Attachment I to the ITB, but did not provide the name of a specific person to fill any of the positions. The Department concluded that Quest had sufficiently "identified" its key personnel. LabCorp did not provide the detailed job descriptions that Quest provided. For example, Sharon Kaplan is listed as "Project Manager" without further description of her qualifications, experience or duties. LabCorp contends that the ITB required the vendors to name specific persons who would fill those positions. The Department counters that the requirement to "identify" key personnel does not necessarily mean that the bidder must name the persons involved, and that Quest satisfied the ITB's requirement by "identifying" the positions it intended to fill and the qualifications for the positions named in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. Regina Taylor, the administrative service director of the Department's Bureau of Public Health Laboratories, performed the "responsive and responsible" review of the bids.3/ Ms. Taylor testified that the ITB "left the staffing plan a bit open-ended and left it up to the vendor as to how they would present it to us." The Department found both bids responsive though Quest and LabCorp each took a different approach to describing its staffing plan. Ms. Taylor stated that Quest would be able to name its personnel during the implementation process. She noted that LabCorp's bid provided the names of personnel but offered no detailed information regarding the qualifications or responsibilities of those persons beyond their job titles, whereas Quest provided detailed job descriptions without naming the persons who would fill the jobs. Ms. Taylor was not overly concerned about either company's ability to satisfy the requirements of the ITB. She stated, "Both Quest and LabCorp are national companies, so I'm sure that they have the adequate staff." The "Professional Qualification" section of Attachment I provides that the successful bidder is responsible for insuring that staff is properly qualified and certified. The "Staffing Levels" section allows the Department to review the successful bidder's staffing levels and require the bidder to remedy any deficiencies within 30 days of the Department's written notice. Ms. Taylor testified that the staffing provision section of the ITB was intended to ensure that the winning bidder had within its organization certain critical positions. The Department relied on its own experience in operating the state public health laboratory to identify the staffing requirements of the ITB. LabCorp points out that Quest was the only bidder that failed to submit a list of names of key personnel. Like LabCorp, Florida Reference Laboratory, and Ecolab Group Co. submitted the names of their key personnel. LabCorp also points out that Ms. Taylor's initial reaction to Quest's staffing plan submission was to call it "lame." Ms. Taylor's pronouncement on the quality of the Quest staffing plan was not a part of her review or of the Department's decision. Whether or not it she found it "lame," Ms. Taylor concluded that Quest's staffing plan was responsive to the bid criteria. The ITB requires the bidder to "identify" the "key personnel" with whom it proposes to staff the project. The ITB also states that the Department considers these key personnel to be "essential to this project." However, the ITB does not expressly define the term "key personnel." LabCorp named persons to fill the positions named in the Staffing Levels provision of Attachment I, which it reasonably took to be synonymous with "key personnel" referenced in the Staffing Changes provision of Attachment I. Via its staffing plan, Quest "identified" the key personnel without naming them. Given the lack of precision in these "open-ended" ITB specifications, both LabCorp and Quest made reasonable responses to the staffing requirements. Each chose a different way of "identifying" key personnel. Neither could be found to have clearly failed to comply with the bid specifications. The Department acted reasonably in finding both bids responsive. If LabCorp were correct that Quest's bid response did not comply with the staffing specifications, the question would arise as to whether Quest's deviation from the ITB specifications was a "minor irregularity" that could be waived by the Department. As noted above, the ITB defines "minor irregularity" as a variation from the bid specifications that does not affect the bidder's price or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. LabCorp has not identified any adverse impact on the Department that Quest's failure to name its proposed staff or key personnel would have. Indeed, LabCorp is hard pressed to state what advantage the Department gains by having the vendor name 69 field representatives and 19 sales support persons in its bid. The names are likely meaningless to the Department. "Sharon Kaplan, Project Manager" provides no more useful information than does Quest's description of the education, knowledge, and experience it requires of a project manager. The Department's concern was vendor capability to adequately staff the project, and the Department reasonably concluded that both vendors' bids demonstrated that capability. The basis for award of this bid was the lowest price. There was no scored evaluation of the ITB responses, no ranking of the staffing plans, and no effort contemplated by the Department to investigate the qualifications of the named personnel. The staffing plans submitted by LabCorp and Quest were of equal value to the Department as an indication of the vendors' understanding of the bid criteria and ability to fill the necessary positions. The ITB anticipates that the Department will deal with any staffing problems after the contract is awarded and the successful bidder begins to implement its program. LabCorp fails to identify any price advantage that Quest would gain by not naming the persons who would fill the key personnel positions, and none is apparent. Whether or not the personnel are named in the bid, the key positions would have to be filled at a cost that would presumably be roughly the same for each vendor. Again, the ITB gives the Department the power to raise staffing questions with the successful bidder and to require that problems be remedied within 30 days of written notice. LabCorp contends that Quest's failure to name key personnel gave it an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. LabCorp argues that it went to the time and expense of preparing a detailed staffing plan, whereas Quest cut corners by submitting a set of generic job descriptions. Quest's method of setting forth its staffing plan may or may not have made its bid preparation easier, but did nothing to improve its competitive position in the bidding process. Quest's commitment to fill the required staffing positions was equal to LabCorp's. LabCorp points out that its own staffing plan included persons who are already on its payroll. LabCorp did not offer an estimate as to the likelihood that all of the approximately 102 persons named in its staffing plan would still be on its payroll by the time the company commenced performing the contract. LabCorp has no way of guaranteeing that all of those persons will be present to perform on the contract. Under the "Staffing Changes" provision, LabCorp would be allowed to substitute other qualified LabCorp employees for the named persons should the need arise. The virtual certainty of employee turnover supports the Department's position that the ITB did not require that bidders undertake the task of naming the employees who would fill the positions set forth in the "Staffing Levels" section of Attachment I. LabCorp argues that Quest's staffing plan gives it the opportunity to delay or avoid altogether hiring the staff necessary to perform the contract to the Department's satisfaction. As noted above, the inclusion of employee names in the bid could not guarantee that the named employees would still be working for LabCorp after the bid award. Quest's commitment to staff the project was no less than LabCorp's. LabCorp's argument suggests that Quest's bid should be rejected because Quest may later choose to breach the contract, which specifically requires the vendor to provide adequate qualified staff. In any procurement, there is always a remote potential that the winning vendor will breach or default. The Department's contract provides remedies for such defaults. In summary, it is found that the bids of both LabCorp and Quest met the requirements of the ITB as to staffing plans. Even if LabCorp's narrow interpretation of the ITB's requirements were correct, Quest's non-conforming response would constitute a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc.'s formal written protest and awarding the contract for Invitation to Bid No. DOH 12-007 to Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 10th day of December, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, filed an Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 00-52375 against the Petitioner's license to practice dentistry on May 13, 1986. The Petitioner did not dispute the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the Board of Dentistry held an informal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on September 13, 1986. On October 2, 1986, the Board of Dentistry issued a Final Order suspending the Petitioner from the remunerative practice of dentistry for a period of ten (10) years and advised the Petitioner of his right to appeal the Board's Final Order. The Petitioner did not appeal the October 2, 1986 Final Order of the Board of Dentistry. On or about May 1, 1987, and/or May 2, 1987, the Board of Dentistry met to consider correspondence from the Petitioner seeking a determination of compliance with the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order for his proposal to do volunteer community service dental work at "St. Catherine Laboure Manor" in Jacksonville, Florida. The Board of Dentistry requested further clarification from the Petitioner and took no further action with respect to the Petitioner's request. On June 10, 1987, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's request to allow him to provide volunteer community service dental work under indirect supervision, and on June 26, 1987, the Board of Dentistry issued an Order Denying the Modification. The Petitioner did not appeal the June 26, 1987, Order of the Board of Dentistry. On or about March 9, 1988, the Petitioner submitted his second request to the Board of Dentistry for modification of its October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner identified the following reasons as why the Board of Dentistry should grant his request: My obligation to the people of the State of Florida was fully satisfied on September 28, 1987 (enc.). My civil rights were restored on February 25, 1988 (enc.). The fine imposed by the Board of Professional Regulation ($2000.00) has been paid in full. Since July 1987 I have been treating patients in St. Catherine Laboure' Manor under the direct supervision of Owen Boales D.D.S., as required by order of the Board (enc.). I am currently 64 years of age and need gainful employment. My wife and I are currently surviving primary on her earnings as an employee of the Florida Community College at Jacksonville. My mentally disabled son was admitted to The Northeast Florida State Hospital approximately one month after my arrest. His condition would be benefited by whatever personal attention and care my wife and I may be able to provide. The ten year suspension order now in effect is tantamount to lifetime punishment. This long suspension does not benefit the public but severely obstructs rehabilitative effort. It minimizes the opportunities for professional public service and prevents professional employment. It reduces the available options to demonstrate reliability and observable conformity to the profession's ethical standards. It will continue to impede all my effort to becoming a self sustaining productive and worthy member of society. On April 23, 1988, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's second request for modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order. After discussion and consideration of the evidence and arguments of the Petitioner, the Board of Dentistry on July 13, 1988, issued an Order Denying Modification of Final Order. The Petitioner did not appeal the Board's July 13, 1988 Order denying his second request. On or about June 5, 1990, the Petitioner through his attorney submitted his third request to the Board of Dentistry for a modification of the October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner's third Motion for Modification of Final Order submitted to the Board on or about June 5, 1990, did not contain information or circumstances that were substantially different from those known to the Board at the time the Final Order of October 2, 1986, was entered, at the time the first order was entered denying the modification request, or that were known to the Board when it had previously heard and denied Petitioner's second request in 1988. On July 28, 1990, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's third request for modification of the October 2, 1986 Final Order. After discussion of the parties and upon the advice of legal counsel, the Board of Dentistry on August 13, 1990, issued an Order Denying Modification of Final Order. The Petitioner timely sought an appeal of the Board's August 13, 1990 Order in the First District Court of Appeal, Case Number 90-2369. On September 4, 1991, the First District Court of Appeal issued its opinion where they found the August 13, 1990 Final Order to be ambiguous, vacated the August 13th Final Order, and remanded the case back to the Board of Dentistry for further proceedings. On October 8, 1991, the First District Court of Appeal issued its Mandate to the Board of Dentistry to hold further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. On or about October 15, 1991, the Petitioner submitted an Amended Motion for Modification alleging for the first time that "there had been material changes in circumstances since his suspension was entered and/or since the previous rulings as to his suspension." On November 8, 1991, the Board of Dentistry met to consider the Petitioner's third request for modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order, the Amended Motion for Modification of Final Order, and the Opinion and Mandate of the First District Court of Appeal. After discussion and consideration of the Petitioner's requests for modification, the Opinion and Mandate of the First District Court of Appeal, and the evidence presented, on December 12, 1991, the Board of Dentistry issued a Final Order on Remand granting the Petitioner's Amended Motion for Modification of the Board's October 2, 1986 Final Order. The Petitioner is a sole proprietor of a professional practice of dentistry. His principal office and domicile are located in Jacksonville, Florida. He has fewer than twenty-five (25) full-time employees, and his net worth, at the time of filing, was less than two million ($2,000,000) dollars. The Petitioner incurred appellate attorney's fees in the amount of $8,990.00 and costs in the amount of $323.92. The Respondent did not dispute the reasonableness of the fees and costs in this case.
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August 14, 1986, the Petitioner herein, Marilyn L. Edwards, submitted an application for examination for licensure as a technologist in Florida under the provisions of the Florida Clinical Laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's application was reviewed in the Office of Licensure and Certification of DHRS by Mr. George S. Taylor, Jr. Assistant Administrator of the Laboratory Personnel Licensure Section. The criteria for licensure as a technologist are outlined in Section 10D-41.69, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that the applicant must have one of the following: A bachelor's degree, from an accredited college or university in an approved Medical Technology Program, or 90 semester hours at an accredited college or university in addition to one year in an AMA approved school of medical technology, or A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in one of the chemical, physical, or biological sciences with one year laboratory experience at the technician level, or An associate degree or 60 semester hours at an accredited college or university in an approved Medical Laboratory Technician Program which includes 8 hours in chemistry and 8 hours in biological science, or 60 semester hours at an accredited college or university including 20 hours of science of which at least 8 hours is in chemistry and 8 in biological science plus 4 years experience as a chemical laboratory technician. Petitioner's application was filed under the provisions of Rule 10D- 41.69(4), Florida Administrative Code, above. However, Petitioner did not meet that criteria. The school at which she was trained a program administered by the Veteran's Administration, (VA), Hospital in Dublin, Georgia, was not an accredited college as required. Ms. Edwards attended a VA certified laboratory assistant program in Dublin, Georgia, approved by the American Society of Clinical Pathology during 1970 and 1971. After graduating from that program, she took and passed the technician's examination in Florida. The course work included in the VA program included 1388 of classroom hours of course work which have not, to this date, been converted to equivalent credit hours. The course work did, however include such subject matters as anatomy, organic and inorganic chemistry, hematology parasitology, microbiology, urinalysis coagulation, and aminohematology. Ms. Edwards contends that according to the current schedule of Miami-Dade Community College the above courses make up the course work for the Associate degree in technology and in addition to the above, Ms. Edwards did her practicals, which included phlebotomy training, at the VA Hospital in Dublin. Ms. Edwards has had fourteen years of training and experience in the medical technician field. Based on the course work taken and her fourteen years experience, she contends she meets the criteria for examination. It is her opinion that the agency, in denying her application for examination, has failed to consider the years of experience she has and it is her contention that some of the programs approved by the agency are not as thorough in the laboratory sciences as that which she took. Ms. Edwards feels she has the knowledge to be a technologist, but admits the rules currently existing prohibit her certification because of the fact that she does not have the required course work at an approved college or university. The American Medical Association approves various types of allied health education and three types of medical technology education which are referenced in the agency rule. These are: Medical technologist (a four year degree program from an accredited academic institution), A medical laboratory technician associate degree program offered by various community colleges (This is very similar to and generally geared to the technician levels but there is more academics involved than for the technician certification. This second pathway meets the academic requirements for certification.), and A one year medical laboratory technician course (not referenced for technologist licensure but for technician only). There is a difference between a technician and a technologist. The former can perform with supervision and undertake tasks requiring limited judgment. The latter may work independently without supervision. Petitioner is already designated as a medical technician. In her application, according to the agency, Petitioner submitted evidence of a course of training for a technician in order to be certified as such. She also submitted the same educational background with her application for licensure as a technologist. The Veteran's Administration Hospital's course is not accredited for college credit. Even though she applied under Section (4) of the rule, she could be considered under Subsection (5) which calls for 60 semester hours plus 20 hours of scientific courses in biology and chemistry, along with four years clinical laboratory experience. Petitioner has the clinical laboratory experience and has taken some courses, but she is not considered as meeting the academic requirement because the institution where her educational courses were taken is not an accredited academic institutions as outlined in the Education Directory published by the National Center for Education Statistics sponsored by the United States Department of Education. As a result, the courses she took do not qualify as college academic courses at the technologist level. DHRS does not establish equivalent course work. The 1388 hours of classroom work taken by the applicant are not semester hours. Though Mr. Taylor said that if she had an accredited junior college or other academic institution translate the equivalents within its degree program and give her academic credit for them and if it is determined by the institution that her course work is equivalent to the required 60 hours for licensure, Petitioner will be permitted to sit for the examination, this really cannot be done. The equivalents outlined in the rule refer to equivalent courses that is semester hours to quarter or trimester hours - not equivalent institutions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Marilyn Edwards, be denied examination for 1icensure as a certified laboratory technologist in Florida based on her current educational background. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Powers, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32399-0700 Marilyn L. Edwards 2300 Northwest 94th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard T. Helfand Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd venue, Suite 1040 Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the State of Florida, holding License No. RN 1471852. (Admission #2). From May 19, 1980 until April 6, 1988, the Respondent was employed at HCA North Florida Regional Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida. (Admission #4). The Respondent made charting errors or failed to chart as alleged in the Administrative Complaint regarding patients at North Florida Regional Medical Center. This constitutes unprofessional conduct proscribed by Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. See the Respondent's admissions through counsel at hearing. The Respondent saw a counselor at Charter Springs Hospital for an evaluation. Whether the Respondent was a participant in the Impaired Practitioner's program is unclear, and whether this evaluation was part of that program is also unclear. In the preparation for that interview, the Respondent executed two release forms, Michel's Exhibits 1 and 2. These release forms bear the following direction: PROHIBITION ON REDISCLOSURE: THIS INFORMA- TION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO YOU FROM RECORDS WHOSE CONFIDENTIALITY IS PROTECTED. ANY FURTHER REDISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS THE PATIENT PROVIDES SPECIFIC WRITTEN CONSENT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION. Michel's Exhibit 3, an information sheet on the intervention program for nurses, states in pertinent part regarding potential release of information as follows quoting from Section 464.0185(6)(b), Florida Statutes: If, in the opinion of such a consultant after consultation with the provider, an impaired nurse who is enrolled in an approved program has not progressed satisfactorily, then the consultant shall disclose to the department all information in his possession regarding such nurse.... The Petitioner offered no evidence that the Respondent was ever accepted into the program. Respondent's Exhibit 4, a screening form for the impaired nurse program, contains the following question and language: "Immediate reason for applying to the IPN program?" and, "I understand participation in the IPN program will be for at least 2 years from the date of acceptance or beginning of treat- ment." The Petitioner offered no evidence that a consultant ever determined that the Respondent was not "progressing satisfactorily." The Respondent's admission that she was dismissed from the program falls short of proving lack of progress. There was no predicate established for the release of the information, notwithstanding the prohibition against redisclosure. While evidence was presented concerning the failure to chart, there was no evidence of failure to file out those forms required to be annotated when control substances are administered. No evidence was received regarding Respondent's alleged possession of drugs, sale of drugs, and falsification of records.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considering the length of time since the events and the lack of proof of the other charges, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent receive a letter of reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2087 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Duplicates paragraph 2. Adopted, as amended. 3-4. Adopted and combined. 5-19. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Rejected as contrary to the facts. There was no evidence that the Respondent was accepted into the IPN project for nurses. There is an admission tht she was dismissed from it. However, the grounds and status for dismissal were not established by evidence or admissions. Rejected as not being based upon the evidence presented. 22-24. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 646, Florida Statutes. 25-26. Admitted for the purpose of establishing the reason for the Charter Springs evaluation. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital. Source is "Deposition, page 5"; however, no deposition was ever introduced into the record. See attached copy of the docket sheet and transcript. Exhibit 5 was excluded upon objection by the Respondent because of the confidential nature of the examination and information developed in it and the limits on the release of this information. In addition, the exact source of the information is uncertain. The information in the report not only came from the Respondent but from other persons at the hospital. Adopted as paragraph 2 of this Recommended Order. Irrelevant. 33-35. Unnecessary in light of the Respondent's admission that she did not chart professionally in violation of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. 36-37. Exhibit 5 and testimony surrounding it was excluded. Admission does not support the proposed factual statement. The testimony does not support the proposed factual statement. The Respondent signed out for drugs for patients at approximately the same time the doctor changed the orders. It is possible that the Respondent had no knowledge of the doctor's orders had changed. 34. (SIC) Appears to duplicate paragraph 34. See comments for paragraph 34 above. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rodney Smith, Esquire P.O. Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615
The Issue Should Petitioner be considered eligible for licensure and licensed as a clinical laboratory supervisor in the specialties sought.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue here, Petitioner was licensed as a clinical laboratory supervisor in the State of Florida in the areas of hematology, serology and microbiology, under the provision of Chapter 483, Part I, Florida Statutes. This licensure is based upon her passing an examination in those subjects and her certification as qualified pursuant to Section 241, Public Law 92-603 by the Bureau of Quality Assurance, Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. She is not certified in the areas in which certification is herein sought. The Department is the state agency responsible for the licensure and regulation of clinical laboratory personnel, including supervisors, in Florida. Petitioner has been licensed as a clinical laboratory supervisor in the disciplines set out above for approximately 12 years, the last six of which, she has spent at the laboratory at Doctor's Hospital in Sarasota, a laboratory approved by the State of Florida. In November, 1989, she applied for supplemental licensure as a clinical laboratory supervisor in the fields of chemistry and immunohematology, but was denied the requested licensure because she does not have either a bachelor's degree with a major in science, or 90 semester hours study in that field at an accredited college or university. Her educational and experience background are, however, impressive. Between June, 1965 and December, 1966, she was in training in the areas of hematology, serology, chemistry, microbiology and immunohematology. In January, 1967, she went to work in a doctor's office and set up his laboratory in which she worked in hematology testing, chemistry and urinalysis. In September, 1967, she went back to a hospital as a technologist in all phases of laboratory work. In July, 1973, she moved to Sarasota and went to work in the laboratory at Doctors Hospital, working with all five subspecialties. She held the job of technician and supervisor in all fields in which she was licensed. Petitioner asserts, and the Department agrees, that she was licensed in Florida as a supervisor in hematology in 1978, and in the areas of microbiology and serology in 1979. In April, 1980, Petitioner went to work for several doctors in Bradenton as a laboratory technician/technologist, remaining there through December, 1980, when she went back to Doctors Hospital, again working in all five specialty areas, and remained there as a technologist and supervisor in those areas in which she was licensed, until October, 1989. Since that time, she has worked in a Sarasota oncology laboratory, in hematology and clinical chemistry. She does no on-site chemical testing, however, since all is sent out. Through cross examination of the Petitioner, Respondent established that in 19878, and again in 1979, Petitioner took and failed to pass the Florida examination for supervisor in clinical chemistry and hematology. In the instant case, however, her protest is not about the grade she received on those examinations, but of the refusal to grant her licensure without examination on the basis of her experience. Petitioner is well thought of by the physician's for whom she works. Dr. Barbara J. Harty-Golder, a pathologist and her current supervisor, has known her since 1983 and has indirectly supervised her work since that time. She feels that Petitioner's performance in laboratory technology in the areas in which she seeks certification, is quite good. She has rarely worked with anyone as proficient and competent. Petitioner has exceptionally good people skills. She keeps up with current advances, and based on the witness' experience, which comes from supervision of several laboratories, she feels the Petitioner is fully qualified to be a supervisor in the areas in which she seeks certification. In late November, 1989, after Petitioner had submitted her request for licensure without examination, Ms. Nancy Chapman, assistant administrator of the Department's laboratory licensure division, and the individual responsible for evaluating Petitioner's application, wrote to her requesting information which was not on file in the Department's records. This information related to Petitioner's holding a bachelor's degree with a major in science. Petitioner did not respond to that request, and Petitioner stipulates that she does not possess the technical formal education specified in the Department's rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Secretary enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application to add the specialty areas of clinical chemistry and immunohematology to her clinical laboratory supervisor's license. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 25th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1880 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Petitioner is a duly certified laboratory technologist, but not proven as to the subject matters in which so certified. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire DHRS 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Lawrence J. Robinson, Esquire Robinson, Robinson & Fogleman, P.A. P.O. Box 2720 Sarasota, Florida 34230-2720 John Miller General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: By letter dated August 11, 1986, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that her application for supervisor license under the Florida Clinical Laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes, was denied. The letter provided that the application was denied because the Petitioner does "not have a B.S. degree required under Section 10D-41.68(3), Florida Administrative Code." By letter dated September 9, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Petitioner took and passed the proficiency examination for clinical laboratory technologists given by the U.S. Office of Health and Human Services (formerly Department of Health, Education and Welfare) in 1977. Based in part on the Petitioner's satisfactory grade on the federal examination, she was licensed in the State of Florida as a clinical laboratory technologist in microbiology, clinical chemistry, hematology and histology. The Petitioner has over six years of pertinent clinical laboratory experience. The Petitioner does not have a bachelor's degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Charlotte Holton's application for supervisor license under the Florida Clinical Laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 11th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4067 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as argument. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Charlotte Holton 4200 Northwest 76th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33065 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite 790 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in September 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Because of a "gut feeling that something was wrong" when he was not hired, Petitioner, Ausbon Brown, Jr. (Petitioner), an African-American male born on April 25, 1943, filed a complaint alleging that Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (Department), unlawfully refused to hire him for any one of four positions he applied for on account of his race, gender, and age. The Department denies the allegation and contends that it hired the most qualified employee in each instance. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission), which took over twenty months to complete, the Commission issued a Determination: No Cause on August 18, 1999. Although not specifically established at hearing, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Respondent employed at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year and thus is an employer within the meaning of the law. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Science degree in biology in 1965 from Florida A&M University, a Master of Science degree in wildlife and fisheries science in 1978 from Texas A&M University, and a doctorate in wildlife and fisheries science in 1991 from Texas A&M University. Petitioner's job applications reflect that from June 1965 until April 1994, he worked in various positions for the U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, including as a "survey statistician," "operations research analyst," "chief turtle headstart," "fisheries biologist," "fisheries technician," and "equal opportunity employment counselor." Petitioner then apparently retired from federal service. Beginning on July 28, 1995, and continuing for several years, he was employed as a child support enforcement case analyst with the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR). His current employment is not of record in this case. Although Petitioner says he applied "continuously" for at least fourteen positions with the Department after leaving federal service, only four applications are in issue here. They involve positions 012123, 10081, 60287, and 60288. Position 012123 was a Management Review Specialist in the Department's Tallahassee district office ; position 10081 was an Operations and Management Consultant II at the Northeast Florida State Hospital in Macclenny; position 60287 was an Operations and Management Consultant II in the Department's Daytona Beach district office; and position 60288 was an Operations and Management Consultant II at the Department's central office in Tallahassee. Position 60287 was originally assigned to the Family Safety and Preservation Program in District 12 and required that the applicant have experience in child neglect and foster services. It was first advertised through a Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA) published on December 24, 1996. Because it was a "highly responsible" position that more closely fit within District Administration, the position was later "pulled" from the Family Safety and Preservation Program and transferred to District Administration. On January 8, 1997, Jane Miller (Miller), a black female and at that time a Program Administrator for the Family Safety and Preservation Program, submitted an interoffice memorandum requesting that she be given a 2-step demotion from pay grade 25 to 23, so that she could fill the position. It can be inferred from the evidence that her request for a demotion was due to a legislatively-mandated reorganization in 1997 that eliminated or transferred a number of positions. Because it was in the best interest of the Department, and Miller was fully qualified to assume the position, the Department decided to fill the slot through a demotion rather than from the applicant pool, and Miller's request was granted. After the position was transferred to District Administration, however, she demoted into another position involving day care licensure, rather than 60287. In response to the JOA, Petitioner timely filed his application. On January 14, 1997, he received a letter from the Department which advised that the position was being "filled by an employee who has taken a voluntary demotion with the department to assume this role." Although this ultimately turned out not to be true, when the letter was sent, the Department did in fact intend to fill the position through Miller's demotion, and thus it was an accurate representation at that time. The undersigned rejects the contention that the above letter, without a second letter to applicants explaining what actually occurred later, proves that there was discrimination. As noted above, after the January 14 letter was sent, the position was transferred to District Administration. A short time later, the reorganization of the Department was implemented, and Betsy Lewis (Lewis), a female whose age and race are unknown, filled the slot through a lateral reassignment that became effective on October 27, 1997. Prior to her reassignment, Lewis had held a similar position and was fully qualified. There was no evidence that the Department accepted Miller's demotion, then transferred the position to District Administration, and then laterally reassigned Lewis in order to deny Petitioner employment on account of his age, race, or gender. Position 60288, also an Operations and Management Consultant II, was located at the Department's central office in Tallahassee, Florida. Under current record retention requirements for that office, the Department purges "all records for employment received from individuals seeking employment but [who] were not hired" two years after the application deadline. Because more than two years have gone by since the application deadline, all of the records pertaining to the applicants who sought that position have been purged; therefore, a complete file relating to this position was not available at the final hearing. Position 60288 involved the compilation, analysis, and reporting of substance abuse data for the Department's substance abuse program. After he filed his application, Petitioner was given a telephone interview by Dr. L. E. Stivers, Program Administrator for Policy Integration & Information Systems. Although Petitioner says he had a "congenial interview" with Dr. Stivers, he was not considered because of a lack of proficiency in substance abuse language. Because Petitioner did not believe that knowledge of substance abuse was a prerequisite for a computer-related job in the substance abuse program, he asserted that Dr. Stivers was biased towards him, was "stretching for a reason to eliminate [him]," and used the lack of proficiency in drug abuse language as a pretext for not hiring him. These assertions have been rejected as not being credible. Of the candidates interviewed for the job, only three names were submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Substance Abuse for further consideration. Petitioner was not one of the three. Ultimately, a male (Robert Morrell) whose age and race are unknown, was hired for the job. That individual had direct experience in performing substance abuse data collection in the same department where the position was located, and he was the most qualified candidate. Position 10081, an Operations and Management Consultant II, was assigned to the Northeast Florida State Hospital in Macclenny, Florida. According to the vacancy announcement, the position's duties included "the support, consultation and guidance of the Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Directors in the development and implementation of policies and procedures in the multi-discipline treatment and rehabilitation of mentally and physically ill residents in the area of Unit Operations." Thus, the position required that the individual have a working knowledge of the treatment of mental health patients and preferably a background in mental health. Petitioner met the minimum qualifications stated in the job announcement document and, along with seven other candidates, was given an interview. All candidates were asked the same questions. Petitioner contended that none of the questions asked were relevant, and most dealt with the "treatment of patients." This is hardly surprising, however, since the facility treats the mentally ill. A contention that the questions were unfair and were framed so as to exclude all "external" candidates has been rejected. The position was ultimately filled by Mary Jane Hartenstein (Hartenstein), a white female who was younger than Petitioner, and who received the highest score of all the applicants. At the time she was hired, Hartenstein served as a Unit Treatment Rehabilitation Director at the facility and was familiar with the treatment of mental health patients. She was the most qualified applicant because of her prior experience. The final position was 012123, a Management Review Specialist in the Tallahassee district office. The position called for familiarity with "planning, information resource planning, legislative budget requests, performance of needs assessment and knowledge of health and human services." John Girvin (Girvin), a white male whose age was the same as Petitioner, was ultimately selected for the job. Girvin had prior experience as a deputy secretary and assistant division director for the Department of Commerce and also served with the Historical Preservation Society. The evidence supports a finding that he was the most qualified person for the job. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Petitioner pointed out that when he had previously submitted his qualifications to his former employer (DOR) in 1996, he received a letter from DOR indicating that DOR "felt" that he qualified for a number of positions within the agency, including a Management Review Specialist. Therefore, Petitioner contended that this affirmation of qualifications by DOR also qualified him for the same type of position with another state agency, including the Department's position 012123. Assuming this to be true, it merely means that Petitioner met the minimum qualifications for such a position; it does not mean that he was the best qualified person for the job. As noted above, a more qualified individual was selected for the position. Petitioner further contended that nothing in the basic job announcement for position 10081 indicated that skills in "psychosocial" services were needed. That document, however, merely identified the minimum qualifications, and further details concerning the specific job requirements could have been obtained from the hospital's human resources office. Petitioner has also contended that existing employees of an agency have an advantage over "external" candidates since they can more easily obtain direct experience in the desired area as well as information about "vital criteria" for the job. Even if this is true, it does not equate to a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the law. Moreover, the evidence here shows that the most qualified person was hired in each instance. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the Department violated various Department of Management Services rules in the hiring process, such as failing to timely notify him after Wilson did not actually demote into position 60287, and ignoring the generic minimum qualifications which apply to similar positions in all agencies. The latter claim has been rejected, but even if a technical error occurred, such as the Department failing to send a second letter regarding position 60287, such action was harmless and was not taken with discriminatory animus. In summary, there was no credible evidence that the Department "chang[ed] classifications and var[ied] conditions of employment" in an effort to deny Petitioner employment, or that the Department's actions were a pretext for discrimination, as alleged in the Petition for Relief. Further, there is no evidence that the employment decisions were grounded on discriminatory animus in any respect, or that a discriminatory reason motivated the Department in its actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 13th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Ausbon Brown, Jr. Post Office Box 289 Daytona Beach, Florida 32636 Kevin E. Hyde, Esquire Natasha A. Garrison, Esquire Foley & Lardner 200 Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Daniel T. Medved, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 412 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-3269 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Agency is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since August 27, 1971, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He holds license number ME 0018306. Respondent previously faced charges of professional misconduct in DPR Case No. 89-0925. In that case, Respondent was charged with practicing medicine with an inactive license from on or about January 1, 1984, until on or about November 22, 1989. The matter was resolved by the parties entering into a settlement stipulation, which was approved by the Board of Medicine in a final order entered August 13, 1990. Under the terms of the agreement, Respondent, without admitting his guilt, agreed to pay a $500.00 administrative fine and not to "in the future violate Chapters 455, 458 and 893, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." Facts Relating to Case No. 93-2640/Administrative Complaint #1 From on or about February 8, 1991, to March 24, 1991, patient R.D., a 43 year old male who had tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), was hospitalized at North Florida Reception Medical Center Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "MCH"). During his hospitalization, R.D. received treatment for advanced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and related complications. Elizabeth Mutch, M.D., was R.D.'s attending physician at MCH. R.D. was experiencing difficulty in swallowing oral medications due to multiple ulcerations in his mouth secondary to an uncontrolled Herpes Virus. On or about March 16, 1991, Dr. Mutch determined that R.D. would benefit from intravenous medications through a central venous line. She therefore wrote an order for "central venous line placement Monday 3/18." In another written order, she directed that "IV fluids [be held] until central venous line in place." Both orders were dated March 16, 1991. In her progress notes for March 16, 1991, Dr. Mutch indicated "Central line ASAP." In the middle of March of 1991, Respondent was the acting medical director of MCH. In addition to his duties as acting medical director, he was on the staff of the hospital's internal medicine department. Respondent was the only internist on staff at the hospital with any significant experience in central line placements of the type ordered by Dr. Mutch, although there was a surgeon affiliated with the hospital, a Dr. Capliwski, who had such experience and in fact performed most of the placements needed by patients at the hospital. Sometime after she wrote the order for central venous line placement for R.D., Dr. Mutch verbally requested Respondent to attempt such placement at his earliest possible convenience. On March 18, 1991, Respondent made approximately five unsuccessful attempts to place a subclavian venous line in R.D., the first of which yielded air, indicating that R.D.'s lung had been punctured. Following these unsuccessful placement attempts, Respondent ordered a chest x-ray for R.D. The x-ray taken revealed no evidence of pulmonary distress. Respondent's progress notes for March 18, 1991, do not reflect that he ordered a surgical consultation that day after his placement attempts failed. The next two or three days Respondent was out of town on hospital business in his capacity as the hospital's acting medical director. Respondent reasonably assumed that, in his absence from the hospital, Dr. Mutch would ask Dr. Capliwski to try to perform the central venous line placement that she had initially requested Respondent to attempt. Upon his return to the hospital, Respondent learned that no such attempt had been made. Respondent therefore again made several attempts at central venous line placement. Placement was attempted via R.D.'s jugular vein. While the approach was different, the results were the same. Respondent was unable to accomplish his objective. Following this second series of unsuccessful placement attempts, Respondent ordered another chest x-ray for R.D. On March 24, 1991, at approximately 1:00 a.m., R.D. began to have difficulty breathing. He also had a rapid heart rate, a pulse rate of 140, a respiratory rate of 30, and a temperature of 103.3. degrees. Respondent was the "on call" physician. He was at home, approximately 35 miles away from the hospital. The duty nurse telephoned Respondent and spoke with him about R.D. 3/ Respondent instructed the nurse to give R.D. Tylenol and to make sure that he was receiving oxygen. He did not suggest that R.D. be seen by Dr. Chandler, the physician manning MCH's emergency room. By 9:15 p.m. that same day, R.D.'s condition had further deteriorated. His respiratory rate had increased to 40. The duty nurse again telephoned Respondent at home and informed him of R.D.'s deteriorating condition. This time Respondent directed that R.D. be immediately evaluated by Dr. Chandler. In accordance with Respondent's directive, Dr. Chandler was contacted. He ordered a chest x-ray for R.D. The x-ray revealed a 50 percent pneumothorax with right mediastinal shift. Dr. Chandler therefore performed an emergency thoracotomy. Arrangements were then made to transfer R.D. to Lake Shore Hospital. At approximately 10:10 p.m. on March 24, 1991, shortly after he was placed in the ambulance that was to transport him to Lake Shore Hospital, R.D. experienced respiratory arrest and expired. An autopsy was performed by Carolyn Hopkins, M.D., of the local Medical Examiner's Office. The autopsy report prepared by Dr. Hopkins lists "complications of acquire[d] immunodeficiency syndrome" as the cause of death. More specifically, Respondent died as a result of a tension pneumothorax. Facts Relating to Case No. 93-2683/Administrative Complaint #2 Counts 1 and 2 Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida was inactive due to non-renewal from on or about December 31, 1983, until approximately November of 1989. Respondent engaged in the practice of medicine at Cypress Medical and Professional Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "Centre") in Winter Haven, Florida, during a portion of the period that his medical license was inactive. On or about September 12, 1989, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of referring a patient to a business entity without disclosure of financial interest, in violation of Section 458.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989). It was stipulated by Respondent and the prosecutor at the time of the entry of the plea that the crime to which Respondent pled was a lesser included offense of the crime of practicing medicine without a license. On or about October 25, 1989, adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay a $500.00 fine. Counts 3, 4 and 5 On January 20, 1989, patient M.L. went to the Centre complaining, among other things, of chronic headaches. M.L. was first seen by a chiropractor at the Centre, who referred her "to M.D. for complete detailed neurologic-orthopedic exam." On January 24, 1989, M.L. was examined by Respondent at the Centre. The records maintained at the Centre reflect that, during this initial examination, Respondent explored the history and possible etiology of M.L.'s chronic headaches. The entries made on the Progress Notes and Patient Control Sheet maintained at the Centre (11 of which apparently were made by, or at the direction of, Respondent) reflect that M.L. visited the Centre on 21 different occasions. Bills from the Centre for 20 of these 21 visits were signed by Respondent. 4/ The Progress Notes and Patient Control Sheet do not reflect that Respondent saw M.L. on all 20 visits covered by these bills. Facts Relating to Case No. 94-0234/Administrative Complaint #3 On November 22, 1989, patient A.M.D., a 40-year old female, presented to the emergency room at Polk General Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "PGH") in Bartow, Florida, with complaints of a high fever, abdominal pain, vomiting and coughing. An examination revealed that she had rapid pulse and respiration rates. It was further observed that she had a flushed face and epigastric tenderness. A.M.D. was treated in the PGH emergency room with, among other things, an antibiotic, vibramyacin, for which she was also given a prescription. She was then discharged. A.M.D. returned to the PGH emergency room on November 23, 1989, with symptoms similar to those with which she had presented the previous day. She was again treated and discharged. Records of these two emergency room visits were made and kept by the hospital. A.M.D. paid a third visit to the PGH emergency room on November 24, 1989, with symptoms similar to those she had exhibited during her first two visits. On this occasion, she was admitted to PGH in the care of Respondent. She remained in Respondent's care throughout her entire stay at the hospital. As her attending physician, it was incumbent upon Respondent to review the records of A.M.D.'s prior two emergency room visits. Upon A.M.D.'s admission to the hospital, Respondent failed to order multiple blood cultures, notwithstanding that, as Respondent should have known, Respondent was already on an antibiotic. A single blood culture is insufficient to properly diagnose the condition of such a patient. Respondent's initial diagnosis of A.M.D., made without the benefit of results of multiple blood cultures, was undetermined gastrointestinal problems. A.M.D. was treated with, among other things, antibiotics. Although A.M.D. still had a high fever following the first several days of her hospitalization and the diagnosis of her condition remained obscure, Respondent did not attempt to obtain a consultation with an infectious disease specialist, 5/ nor did he order that A.M.D.'s treatment plan be modified to include intravenous administration of high dosages of at least two different broad spectrum, latest generation antibiotics. A.M.D. continued to run a fever until December 4, 1989, after which her condition slightly improved. Even though a blood culture had indicated that A.M.D. had a staphylococcal infection, Respondent nonetheless ordered that the intravenous administration of antibiotics be discontinued because A.M.B. had been afebrile for a few days. Thereafter, A.M.D.'s condition quickly deteriorated. She suffered congestive hear failure, but Respondent did not seek to obtain a consultation with a cardiologist. On December 11, 1989, 17 days after she had been admitted to the hospital, A.M.D. expired. At the time of her death she was not on antibiotics. This was a factor which contributed to her demise. Respondent's final primary diagnosis of A.M.D. was toxemic shock, protracted. His secondary diagnoses included: staphylococcal septicemia, acute; cholelithiasis, chronic; and pneumonitis, subacute, staphylococcal. In not doing the following while A.M.D. was hospitalized at PGH and under his care, Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment that, in light of the surrounding circumstances, a reasonably prudent internist would have recognized as being acceptable and appropriate at the time: ordering multiple blood cultures upon A.M.D.'s admission to the hospital in order to properly assess her condition; attempting to seek a consultation with an infectious disease specialist and ordering that A.M.D.'s treatment plan be modified to include intravenous administration of high dosages of at least two different broad spectrum, latest generation antibiotics when A.M.D. still had a high fever following the first several days of her hospitalization and the diagnosis of her condition remained obscure; seeking to obtain a consultation with a cardiologist when A.M.D. suffered congestive heart failure; and appropriately treating A.M.D. with antibiotics throughout the time she was under his care, including the period following the brief improvement in her condition and reduction of her temperature to normal. Facts Relating to Case No. 94-0235/Administrative Complaint #4 On or about August 17, 1992, patient A.A., a 69 year old male, presented to Respondent at Preferred Quality Medical Care in Plantation, Florida with complaints of shortness of breath and nocturia (two to three times a night). A.A. provided Respondent with a written medical history, which revealed, among other things, that he was a heavy smoker. During his physical examination of A.A., Respondent observed and noted in his written record of the examination, among other things, inspiratory wheezes, prolonged expiration, shortness of breath and that A.A. gave the appearance of being chronically ill. Respondent diagnosed A.A.'s condition as C.O.P.D. (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and what Respondent termed "tobaccism," which is a nonstandard diagnosis. Respondent ordered an EKG, spirometry, urinalysis and blood tests. He failed to order a chest x-ray, notwithstanding that A.A. had indicated he was a heavy smoker and that Respondent's examination had revealed that A.A. had shortness of breath and that he had the appearance of someone who was chronically ill. Under such circumstances, it was quite possible that A.A. was suffering from C.O.P.D., as Respondent had opined. There were other possibilities, however, such as cancer, 6/ tuberculosis, pneumonia and congestive heart failure. In order to fully investigate these other possibilities, it was necessary for Respondent to order a chest x-ray. On or about September 11, 1992, A.A. returned to Respondent complaining of intermittent coughing spells. Respondent examined A.A. and observed prolonged wheezing. Respondent diagnosed A.A.'s condition as C.O.P.D. and hypertensive disease and treated him with bronchodilators. Although a diagnosis of hypertensive disease requires a baseline chest x-ray as part of the initial evaluation, Respondent made his diagnosis without the benefit of such an x-ray. A.A. next visited Respondent on October 19, 1992, complaining of extreme nervousness and inability to sleep. Respondent found that A.A. was expectorating large amounts of mucus. Respondent treated A.A. with Sinequan, which is an antidepressant that helps with sleep. Once again Respondent failed to order a chest x-ray. A.A. returned to Respondent on November 23, 1992, complaining of shortness of breath and nocturia. Respondent examined A.A. and discovered a soft mass in the supraclavicular area. He also noted that A.A. had a heart murmur. Respondent finally ordered a chest x-ray. The x-ray revealed pleural effusion. Subsequent testing detected inoperable cancer, which led to A.A.'s death on May 9, 1993. In waiting until A.A.'s fourth visit before ordering a chest x-ray and, as a result, not making an earlier diagnosis of A.A.'s cancer, Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment that, in light of the surrounding circumstances, a reasonably prudent internist would have recognized as being acceptable and appropriate at the time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of subsection (1) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, noted above, dismissing the remaining allegations against him and disciplining him for the violations he committed by suspending his license for a period of eighteen months, placing him on probation for the following five years, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November, 1994. 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 15th day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated in its hiring practices against Petitioner because of his race, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner because he filed a charge of discrimination, and a complaint.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 2000, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR. (The Charge of Discrimination was FCHR No. 2101775). Thereafter, on or about May 3, 2001, Petitioner filed an Amended Charge of Discrimination (attached to Petition for Relief filed on July 17, 2002). The essence of the Amended Charge was that he had been discriminated against on the basis of race because whites were employed in positions for which he had applied. Petitioner also alleged retaliation and claimed that after he filed his initial Charge of Discrimination, he was not rehired by Respondent as an adjunct instructor and he was denied compensation. The Commission conducted an investigation and on June 4, 2002, issued a Determination: No Cause. The Commission found that there was "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." On the same date, the Commission also issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause, in which it advised Petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief within 35 days of the Notice. Petitioner was also advised that if he failed to request an administrative hearing within 35 days "the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1997, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992)." Petitioner did not file his petition for relief until July 17, 2002, 43 days after the date of the Notice of Determination. In his Petition for Relief, Petitioner claimed that he had been denied full-time employment by Respondent since 1998, and when complaints were filed, Respondent retaliated against him by not rehiring him as an adjunct instructor and denying him unemployment compensation. Petitioner is an African-American male. He received a bachelor of science in mathematics education from Tuskegee University in 1967; a master's degree in business management from Rollins College in 1976; and, a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Central Florida in 2000. Petitioner worked in private industry in Central Florida during the period 1972-1992. During portions of that time, he also worked as an adjunct instructor at Valencia Community College, Florida Southern, and Phillips College. He was employed full-time as an instructor at Brevard Community College from 1992-1996. From 1996 to 1998 he taught at Evans High School in Orlando where he also served as the assistant football coach. Petitioner also taught mathematics and science classes to fifth to eighth grade students at Madison Middle School for part of the 1998/1999 school year. In 1998, Petitioner began teaching as an adjunct instructor at North Florida Community College (College). The College is located in Madison, Florida. It serves the six counties of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Suwannee, Lafayette, and Taylor. The College's district is, geographically, the largest community college district in Florida. Respondent offers a variety of programs ranging from its college transfer program with an associate of arts (AA) or associate of science (AS) degree to two vocational certificate programs. Total enrollment varies from 3,000 to 4,000, depending on vocational enrollments which are demand-based. The current FTE (full-time equivalency) is just under 800. Classes are taught at the campus in Madison and at public high schools in each of the six counties in the service district. Approximately 72 percent of the population of the district is white and 28 percent is non-white. Enrollment at the College mirrors to a large extent the population of the district, except in the college transfer program, where the African-American enrollment is approximately 20 percent, white enrollment is 75 percent, and other groups, including Hispanics, comprise five percent of the students. The Hispanic population of Respondent's six-county district has increased from 1,699 or 1.92 percent of the population in 1990, to 5,019 or 4.73 percent of the population in 2000. This represents a 195 percent increase. Statewide, Florida's Hispanic population grew by 70 percent during the same period. Search committees are appointed by the president of the College and efforts are made to ensure that a member of Respondent's equity committee and a minority, if at all possible, are assigned to each committee. A search committee was appointed by Respondent for each of the applications at issue in this case. Each search committee was charged with reviewing the applications which met the minimum qualifications for each position and then determining the most qualified individuals to be interviewed. After the interviews, the search committee was to recommend the best qualified individual to be offered the position. Search committees are not told to interview individuals of a particular race or gender, but they are encouraged to give special consideration to minorities. If the top two applicants are equal in terms of qualifications and one is a minority candidate and the other is not, they are told to recommend the hiring of the minority applicant over the non-minority. There are 23 full-time instructors in the AA and AS degree programs at the College. Four of those are math instructors. In 1998, Petitioner applied for a position as a full-time mathematics instructor. There were no vacancies in the mathematics department at that time, nor has there been a vacancy for a full-time mathematics instructor at the College at any time since 1991. In 1998, Respondent advertised for an instructor to teach computer science courses in the Business Department. The courses were designed to develop basic computer operation skills, and focused primarily on Microsoft Office Suite software. At the hearing, Petitioner introduced a copy of a letter which was sent to Mr. Doug Brown, a college administrator, in July 1998. In the letter, Petitioner stated that he was "applying for a position in the business or education disciplines." Petitioner discussed his private sector employment experience and his college-level teaching experience, but did not state whether he had any computer science teaching or work experience. The computer science vacancy was filled by a white female who had a master's degree in business and 18 graduate hours in computer science. She had been an adjunct computer science instructor at the College for two years prior to being hired as a full-time instructor. She also taught computer science courses at Madison High School, and she had her own computer business. In 1999, Respondent advertised for the position of program administrator for the North Florida Workforce Development Board. At the time, Respondent was the administrative entity and fiscal agent for the Workforce Development Board. Petitioner applied for the position. None of the applicants were interviewed and the position was never filled because it appeared that Respondent was going to be replaced as administrative entity and fiscal agent, which, in fact, occurred. In December 1999, Respondent advertised to fill the position of project coordinator for the College Reach Out Program (CROP). The program targets economically and educationally disadvantaged youth enrolled in grades 6-12 in the schools in Respondent's service district, who have the potential to finish college but who are likely, without intervention, to drop out of high school. The goal of the program is to keep the students in high school, get them to graduate, and enroll in college. Requirements for the position of project coordinator included a bachelor of arts degree from a four-year college or university and three years of experience working with alternative education programs, at risk youth, or teaching in a youth program department. Approximately 30 persons, including Petitioner, applied for the position of CROP coordinator. A five-member search committee was appointed to review the applications and select individuals to be interviewed. The members of the search committee included Amelia Mulkey, who at the time was Respondent's Director o f Financial Aid, Purchasing and Reports; Mary Anne Wheeler, Director of Student Support Services; and Clyde Alexander, an African-American who is Respondent's athletic director and equity coordinator. After reviewing the applications, the search committee selected five individuals, including Petitioner and Nancy McClellan, to be interviewed. When the interviews were completed, the search committee chose not to rank the applicants. Instead the members unanimously recommended Nancy McClellan for the position. Nancy McClellan was a white female with a bachelor's degree in psychology and a master's degree in social work. A major factor in the selection committee's decision was her ten years of experience working with at-risk adolescents at DISC Village in Leon County, Florida, where she coordinated a comprehensive vocational services program. Her work at DISC Village included assessment, case management, community networking, career exploration, providing employability skills classes, coordinating with education and training providers, grant work, supervising staff, and counseling with parents. In September 2001, Respondent advertised for a case manager for the College Reach Out Program (CROP) in Lafayette and Suwannee Counties. The qualifications for the position were identified as a bachelor's degree in secondary education, social work, or the social services field, with the provision that working with at-risk youth could substitute for education on a month-by-month basis. Case managers are responsible for implementing the CROP programs in the counties to which they are assigned. They market, recruit, and provide services to students in the counties. They work closely with teachers, guidance counselors, students, and parents to enroll the students in the program and to ensure that the students remain in school and graduate. The case managers work with the students on a one-to-one basis. Experience has shown that a social work case management background is an important asset in a CROP case manager in Respondent's district. Students recruited for CROP have a multitude of family issues in their family lives which impact on their ability to remain in school. These include poverty, abuse, neglect, divorce, mental health, and disability issues, all of which social workers are taught to identify, assess, and address. Case managers also educate parents of students regarding available financial aid and college preparation courses which their children should be taking. Eight people, including Petitioner, applied for the position. Two individuals, Lynn Waller and Cheryl Chandler, were interviewed. Lynn Waller was selected for the position. She has a bachelor's degree in social psychology. At the time she was selected, she had been employed as a children's case manager at Apalachee Center for Human Services, working with students in the Madison County School System. She was responsible for recruiting students, working with them, their parents, teachers, and guidance counselors to assess needs, perform psychological assessments, and coordinate same. In his application, Petitioner stated that he had been employed as the CROP Coordinator by Respondent and by Brevard Community College. In fact, Petitioner had never been employed as the CROP Coordinator by Respondent or by Brevard Community College. Petitioner had been employed as one of four part- time facilitators by Respondent from January through June 2000. His duties were to recruit students, organize them into groups, meet with the groups two days per week and schedule one Saturday field trip per month. Nancy McClellan elected not to interview Petitioner for the case manager position, based upon her experience with Dr. Brown as a CROP field facilitator in 2000. When Nancy McClellan assumed her role as CROP Coordinator, Petitioner had not recruited any students from Suwannee County. Eventually, he recruited a total of eight students for CROP. By contrast, in April 2000, Lafayette County had 23 students, Taylor County had 15, and Madison County had 35 students. While Petitioner was case facilitator for Suwannee County, Nancy McClellan received complaints from Suwannee County regarding Petitioner's failure to bring application forms to the County's schools, to pick them up when they had been filled out, and to attend scheduled meetings with students. Petitioner also failed to take the eight students who enrolled in the program on any field trips. By contrast, the other field facilitators were taking the students on regular field trips which was an important part of motivating students to stay in school. In June 2001, Respondent advertised for two positions: learning resource coordinator and transfer advisor. Both were grant-funded positions. The learning resource coordinator is the manager of the tutoring lab for developmental students. These are students who do not have the placement test scores to begin college level work. In the lab they receive assistance in developing their skills in mathematics and English. The learning resource coordinator supervises the transfer advisor, who works with students in developing skills in English, and the retention advisor, who works in developing students' mathematics skills. The learning resource coordinator also supervises and trains tutors, peer mentors, and does some individual tutoring. In addition to the requirement for a four-year degree, the advertisement for the position stated that language proficiency in Spanish was preferred. The preference for Spanish proficiency was based upon the growing Hispanic population on Respondent's campus and the need for a staff person who could tutor the students in their own language, as well as to speak with the families who often accompany them to campus. Experience had shown that Hispanic students were better able to grasp concepts, as in mathematics, when they received tutoring in their native language. There were 18 applicants for the position of learning resource coordinator, among them Petitioner. Petitioner was not selected to be interviewed by the search committee because he did not have proficiency in Spanish. The three individuals who were chosen to be interviewed were proficient in Spanish: two were native Spanish speakers and one had a degree in Spanish. Maria Elizabeth Gonzalez was selected to fill the position. She was a native of Colombia and a native Spanish speaker. She identified herself on her application as Hispanic. At the time she was selected, she had been working for the previous three years as a tutor and as a lab assistant. The transfer advisor position is a grant-funded advisor position in the tutoring lab for developmental students. The transfer advisor works with developmental students in English; the retention advisor works with those students in mathematics. The advertisement for the transfer advisor listed as one of the qualifications a bachelor's degree with an emphasis in English. There were 20 applicants for the Transfer Advisor position. Petitioner was one of the applicants. Four individuals were chosen by the selection committee to be interviewed; all had an undergraduate degree with an emphasis in English. Petitioner was not chosen to be interviewed because his degree did not have an emphasis in English. Carmen Renee Perez was selected to fill the position. She had a bachelor's degree in English and two years of graduate work in English. She had also taught English as a second language. On her application she identified herself as Hispanic/Cuban/Caucasian. In March 2000, Respondent advertised to fill the position of instructor of business and economics. The advertisement stated that the duties of the position would include teaching courses in business, management, accounting, finance, business law, and economics. The minimum requirements included an MBA from an accredited institution or a master's degree with a minimum of 18 semester hours of subject specific graduate course work. There were between 20 and 30 applicants for the position. The search committee chose to interview five of the applicants. Among them were Petitioner; Ellen Stevens, a white female; and Scott Tori, a white male. Following the interviews, the search committee concluded that Dr. Brown had "great math credentials," but his business and economics credentials "were considerably less" than some of the other applicants. The committee concluded that both Ellen Stevens and Scott Tori were better qualified than Petitioner for the position. Ellen Stevens had a masters in business administration, and Scott Tori had a doctorate in economics. Scott Tori was offered the position and he accepted. In addition to his Ph.D., he had a master's degree in economics, and a bachelor's degree in business administration, with an emphasis in finance. At the time he was hired, Tori was an assistant professor of economics and finance at Thomas University. In the late winter of 2002, Respondent advertised to fill a vacancy caused by the retirement of the chemistry and physics instructor. The advertisement stated that the successful candidate would teach chemistry courses through the sophomore level, a year-long organic chemistry sequence, an algebra and calculus-based physics course sequence, and physical science courses, as needed. Petitioner submitted a letter application to Respondent dated March 2, 2002, for a "mathematics/physics/science instructor" position. This was not the title of the open position. In his letter, Petitioner identified himself as a "professor of mathematics." Petitioner was considered for the position but not selected. Terrence M. Zimmerman was determined by the search committee to be the best qualified to fill the position. He had a bachelor's degree in chemistry cum laude, a master's degree in science education, and all but a dissertation for a doctorate in chemistry. He had been an adjunct instructor in chemistry at Tallahassee Community College, an adjunct in chemistry and environmental science at Santa Fe Community College and, at the time he was hired, he was teaching chemistry and environmental science for Respondent as an adjunct. From 1988 until the time he was hired, he also taught chemistry, environmental science, and general science at Taylor County High School in Perry, Florida. Respondent presented credible evidence for each of the positions for which Petitioner applied establishing a non- discriminatory reason for Respondent's decision to hire someone other than Petitioner. In 1998, Petitioner began teaching mathematics courses for Respondent as an adjunct instructor (Adjunct). Adjunct instructors (Adjuncts) are part-time faculty members who are hired by Respondent on a semester-by-semester basis to teach specific classes in subjects in which they are qualified to teach. Adjuncts teach classes at various locations throughout Respondent's six-county district. They are employed on an as-needed basis and execute a new contract for each semester they are hired. Each semester, Respondent publishes a class schedule for the following semester. If Respondent has confirmed that a particular adjunct is going to be teaching a particular class, the adjunct's name will appear on the schedule. If an adjunct has not been confirmed to teach a particular class, the designation of the instructor for that class will appear as "staff." Petitioner was identified by name on the class schedule for one class each in the Spring and Fall of 1999, two classes in the Spring of 2000, and one class in the Fall of 2000. He taught classes in which the name of the instructor appeared on the class schedules as "staff" as follows: one class in the Fall of 1998, two classes in the Summer of 2000, and two classes in the Fall of 2000. The department chair has the discretion to determine which individuals will be hired to teach as adjuncts. Generally, if there is an adjunct who is local, competent, and willing, he or she will be rehired. There is no prescribed procedure for contacting adjuncts. Sometimes the adjuncts contact the department chair; sometimes the department chair contacts the adjuncts. In the Fall semester of 2000, David Proctor, a history professor, was department chair for Respondent's entire AA program. In addition to teaching three classes, one of which was in Hamilton County, he was responsible for scheduling full-time faculty instructors and 34 adjuncts to teach courses in the AA program. He was also responsible for preparing budgets for each department, evaluating faculty, and preparing class schedules. David Proctor intended that Petitioner would teach some of the introductory and intermediate algebra and developmental arithmetic classes during the 2001 Spring Semester. He did not hear from Petitioner in the Fall of 2000 regarding Petitioner's interest in teaching for the 2001 Spring Semester while he was preparing the schedule for the semester; therefore, he used the term "staff" in place of the instructor's name for four classes, intending that Petitioner would teach some of them. In October 2000, after the schedule for the Spring 2001 semester was published, Petitioner approached Proctor on the sidewalk outside the general classroom building on Respondent's campus and asked why his name was not in the schedule. Proctor assured Petitioner that he had every intention of having Petitioner teach during the Spring semester and suggested that they meet and decide what classes Petitioner would teach. Proctor was subsequently unable to meet with Petitioner as scheduled, so he left a note for Petitioner in which he highlighted classes on the schedule and asked Petitioner to tell him which two classes he would like to teach. This occurred in late October or early November. In December 2000, Proctor saw Petitioner outside Proctor's office in the adjunct mailbox area on campus and remembered that he had not heard from Petitioner regarding Petitioner's choice of classes to teach during the Spring semester. Proctor approached Petitioner and suggested they look at the schedule together and identify the classes Petitioner wanted to teach. Petitioner informed Proctor that he was looking elsewhere for employment and he would not be teaching for Respondent. Proctor was surprised, but wished Petitioner well and offered to write letters of recommendation for him. When Petitioner informed Proctor that he did not intend to teach for Respondent, Proctor asked a Hispanic adjunct instructor, Ephraim Bonilla, to pick up these additional courses. The only subsequent contact Petitioner made with Respondent regarding teaching again as an adjunct was a single telephone call at an unspecified date to the new mathematics department chairman, Mr. Harris, during which Petitioner inquired if there were any courses available. Harris told him there were none. Petitioner asked another individual to call with the same question. The individual Petitioner asked to call reported to Petitioner that he had met with the same response. When he prepared the schedule for the Summer of 2001, Proctor assumed that Petitioner was no longer interested in teaching for Respondent, and when he did not hear from him, he did not put his name in the schedule. When Proctor prepared the schedule for the 2001 Spring semester he was unaware that Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission. He was aware of it by the time he prepared the schedule for the Summer of 2001, but that knowledge played no role in his decision not to list Petitioner by name as an adjunct instructor when he prepared the class schedule for the Summer of 2001. Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits effective December 17, 2001, because he was not employed by the College as an adjunct instructor during the 2001 Spring semester. When Respondent received a copy of Petitioner's claim for unemployment compensation, Respondent's Director of Human Resources, Bill Hunter, spoke with David Proctor and learned from him that Petitioner had rejected the opportunity to teach during the 2001 Spring Semester. Bill Hunter provided this information on Respondent's copy of the claim and returned it to the Agency for Workforce Innovation. Petitioner's claim for unemployment compensation was subsequently rejected by state officials and he appealed. Following a telephone hearing during which David Proctor and Petitioner testified, the appeals referee concluded that Petitioner had refused Respondent's offer of an adjunct teaching position for the 2001 Spring Semester and, therefore, was properly barred from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Petitioner subsequently sought review by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the decision of the appeals referee. In August 2000, Petitioner, and several other college employees, filed a complaint against Respondent with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that Respondent was discriminating against students on the basis of race with regard to recruitment and financial aid. The complaint also alleged that Respondent was discriminating on the basis of race in its hiring practices. In a letter dated September 13, 2000, OCR notified Respondent's former president, Dr. Beverly Grissom, of the Complaint. In an attachment to the letter, OCR advised Dr. Grissom that "OCR does not reveal the name or other identifying information about an individual unless it is necessary for the completion of an investigation or for enforcement activities against an institution that violates the laws, or unless such information is required to be disclosed under the FOIA or the Privacy Act." OCR subsequently determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the student financial aid and recruitment allegations. OCR also determined that there was no statistically significant difference between the number of African-American administrators and faculty members actually employed and the expected employment rate based on the relevant labor market. OCR, therefore, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to further investigate the matter. Finally, OCR referred the individual employment allegations in the complaint to the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because it did not have jurisdiction over such claims. Consistent with its September 13, 2000, letter to Dr. Grissom, OCR did not identify the individual complainants, and Respondent was not otherwise aware of this until the hearing in this case that Petitioner had been one of the complainants. Respondent's decisions with regard to filling the vacancies for which Petitioner applied were not based on race, nor were they based on any retaliatory motive. Respondent's decision regarding the absence of Dr. Brown's name from the Spring 2001 class schedule was not based upon a retaliatory motive, nor was there a retaliatory motive involved in informing the unemployment compensation office that Petitioner had refused the offer of a position as an adjunct instructor for the 2001 Spring Semester.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of December, 2002.
