The Issue Whether Petitioner timely filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination ("Complaint") with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR"), and, if so, whether FCHR has jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's Complaint on the merits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by Respondent as an attorney in its Miami, Florida office. On November 13, 2012, Petitioner tendered her resignation via correspondence entitled a "Notice of Constructive Discharge." The correspondence provided that her resignation would be effective on November 23, 2012. Petitioner's last date of employment with Respondent was November 23, 2012, and she was paid through that date. Petitioner completed a FCHR form entitled Technical Assistance Questionnaire for Employment Complaints ("Questionnare") and signed the same on November 20, 2013. The Questionnare provides on its face the following langauge: "REMEMBER, a charge of discrimination must be filed within 365 days of the alleged act of discrimination." Additionally, the Questionnare describes the principal purpose of the document as follows: The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit information about claims of employment discrimination, determine whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations has jurisdiction over those claims, and provide charge filing counseling, as appropriate. On December 23, 2013, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination ("Complaint") against Respondent with FCHR. The Complaint was stamped as received by FCHR on December 23, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. In the Complaint, under section C——"Cause of Discrimination"——Petitioner checked the boxes for sex and retaliation. Petitioner alleged discrimination pursuant to chapter 760 of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The Complaint further alleges that November 23, 2012, was the date that the "most recent discrimination took place." On March 20, 2014, following the completion of its investigation, FCHR issued a Determination: No Jurisdiction, on the grounds that "[t]he complaint was not timely filed."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety due to lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dietrich Renee Jenkins, Esquire Unit 1503 1861 Northwest South River Drive Miami, Florida 33125 Laurie Michele Chess, Esquire Jones Walker, LLP Suite 2600 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Kenneth E. Walton, II, Esquire The Walton Law Firm 1999 Southwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33145 Elizabeth M. Rodriguez, Esquire FordHarrison LLP 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether this action is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact After review of the file, the pleadings and relevant statutory and case law it is clear that Petitioner was terminated from his employment with North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center on April 27, 2000, for alleged excessive absences. Petitioner’s termination was the last adverse employment action taken by his employer that could possibly give rise to any cause of action for employment discrimination based on race, disability or retaliation. Section 95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes, bars a cause of action based on a statutory right if an action on that cause has not been brought within four years of the date the last action occurred that gave rise to the cause of action. As indicated above, the last employment action taken by Petitioner’s employer occurred on April 27, 2000. Four years from that date was April 26, 2004. Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on May 31, 2000. 180 days elapsed with no determination on Petitioner’s charge being made by FCHR. On May 6, 2005, four years after Petitioner’s termination, FCHR entered a Notice of Determination: No Cause and advised Petitioner of his right to file a Petition For Relief within 35 days pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes. Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on or around May 11, 2005, within the 35-day period, but well after the Four-year statute of limitations had expired. Since over four years have passed since Petitioner’s termination, Petitioner’s cause of action is barred by Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, and should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 William H. Mack, Jr. Post Office Box 1373 High Springs, Florida 32643 Dennis M. Flath, Esquire 1200 Northeast 55th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32641-2759
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marlowe D. Robinson ("Petitioner"), was unlawfully discriminated against by Respondent, Broward County School District ("BCSD"), his employer, based on his disability and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, in violation of chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner worked for BCSD for approximately 20 years prior to the termination of his employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner is a disabled veteran. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was employed as the Head Facility Serviceperson at BCSD's office in the Katherine C. Wright Building ("KCW"). On February 5, 2016, Richard Volpi began working at KCW as the Manager of Administrative Support and as Petitioner's immediate supervisor. During Mr. Volpi's third day on the job, Petitioner told him that he was not happy that Mr. Volpi was at KCW and that KCW was "his house." He also told Mr. Volpi that he did not work because he "delegated to his crew." On February 18, 2016, Petitioner filed two internal labor grievances. In the first, he asked to have his job title changed to "Building Operations Supervisor." In the second grievance, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Volpi and Jeff Moquin, Chief of Staff, created a hostile and unclean work environment. Mr. Volpi processed the grievances by having a meeting with Petitioner on February 25, 2016. Finding no basis for the grievances in the collective bargaining agreement, Mr. Volpi denied them. On October 10, 2016, Mr. Volpi met with Petitioner to discuss a significant pattern of Petitioner coming in late, failing to notify BCSD when arriving late, staying after his scheduled shift to make up time without authorization, failing to call in as required for sick days, and failing to have pre- authorization for using accumulated leave. After the meeting, Mr. Volpi issued a written "Meeting Summary," which included counseling, based on Petitioner having come in late 24 days since August 1, 2016, and only notifying Mr. Volpi's assistant of the tardiness on three of those 24 days. The "Meeting Summary" was not considered discipline and stated, "If for any reason you need to change your shift hours to assist you in getting to work on time, please let me know." On October 19, 2016, Petitioner filed his third internal labor grievance after Mr. Volpi became his supervisor. The third labor grievance made numerous allegations against Mr. Volpi, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, unspecified Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") violations, and retaliation for filing prior grievances. On October 26, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for intermittent leave pursuant to FMLA. The next day, Petitioner was notified that his FMLA leave request was incomplete, and was therefore denied. Petitioner was later granted intermittent FMLA leave with the agreement that he was to provide advance notification of his anticipated absences. On November 9, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 16, 2016, for a pre- disciplinary conference to discuss Petitioner's failure to adhere to the directive of October 10, 2016, to notify Mr. Volpi if he was going to be late, out for the day, or working outside his scheduled hours. The letter specified that Petitioner was late October 11, 13, and 17, 2016, without notifying Mr. Volpi, and that Petitioner was late and worked past his regular scheduled hours on October 21, 25, and November 7, 2016. The letter also specified that Petitioner "called out" (took time off) without notifying Mr. Volpi on October 31 and November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, 2016. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth grievance against Mr. Volpi alleging retaliation, bullying, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and various policies of BCSD. On November 16, 2016, Mr. Volpi memorialized in writing that Petitioner failed to show up for the November 16, 2016, pre-disciplinary meeting. On November 21, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 30, 2016, for a pre-disciplinary meeting to replace the original meeting scheduled for November 16, 2016. Petitioner was not disciplined for not showing up to the November 16, 2016, meeting. The meeting on November 30, 2016, went forward as scheduled and Petitioner was issued a verbal reprimand on December 5, 2016, his first discipline from Mr. Volpi, for Petitioner's ignoring the prior directive to contact his supervisor if he was going to be late, absent, or wanted to work beyond his scheduled shift. He was again reminded that he had to make such notifications and have permission in advance of working hours other than his regular shift. On January 12, 2017, Petitioner was granted a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the ADA. The accommodation granted permitted Petitioner to report to work within one hour of his scheduled work time and leave within one hour of his scheduled end time ("flex time"). Additionally, Petitioner was required to notify his supervisor in advance of using flex time. Mr. Volpi assisted Petitioner in the accommodation process. Mr. Volpi provided Petitioner the accommodation paperwork and advocated for Petitioner to be granted an accommodation. On January 26, 2017, Petitioner again came in late without providing Mr. Volpi advance notice of intent to use his flex time. On January 27, 2017, Mr. Volpi sent an email to Petitioner reminding Petitioner that he was required to notify him if he is going to be late. This was not considered discipline. On March 21, 2017, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on March 27, 2017, for a pre-disciplinary meeting regarding ongoing excessive tardiness and failure to adhere to his work schedule. On March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his fifth internal labor grievance, again alleging harassment (among other claims) against Mr. Volpi. On March 28, 2017, Petitioner filed his sixth internal labor grievance, again making harassment allegations against Mr. Volpi. On April 6, 2017, Petitioner was issued a Written Reprimand by Mr. Volpi for his nine days of tardiness in February and March and his failure to notify Mr. Volpi in advance. On April 7, 2017, Petitioner appealed the Written Reprimand. Petitioner also filed his seventh and eighth internal labor grievances alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation. Petitioner filed his Charge with the FCHR on April 13, 2017. Mr. Volpi conducted a first-step grievance hearing on April 27, 2017, and as a result of the discussion with Petitioner, who agreed to notify Mr. Volpi in advance of his inability to arrive at work as scheduled, the April 6, 2017, Written Reprimand was reduced to a verbal warning. The FCHR dismissed Petitioner's Charge with a No Reasonable Cause Determination on October 10, 2017. Between January 1 and February 15, 2018, Petitioner came to work late 14 days without providing prior notice, was absent without leave two days, and worked overtime one day without prior authorization. As a result, BCSD issued a three- day suspension on February 21, 2018. On February 22, 2018, Mr. Volpi met again with Petitioner to go over the expectations and provided a reminder memo not to work unauthorized hours without prior approval. On March 13, 2018, Mr. Volpi asked BCSD to issue a ten-day suspension to Petitioner for his ongoing failure to report to work at assigned times, unauthorized overtime, and absences without leave. In response, Petitioner filed yet another labor grievance. BCSD approved the ten-day suspension on April 10, 2018. Despite the ADA accommodation, increasing discipline, multiple counseling meetings and reminders, Petitioner continued his pattern of tardiness, unauthorized overtime, and absences. Accordingly, BCSD terminated Petitioner's employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner's discipline and ultimate termination were not performance based, but rather, related solely to ongoing attendance issues.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700954. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Department of Insurance (DOI), now Department of Financial Services, discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of national origin or age contrary to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Elamir G. Ghattas, a naturalized American of Egyptian birth, who is 71 years of age. The Petitioner was employed by the DOI for 18 years. He was assigned to maintain the law library at the DOI in 1985, and performed those duties until 2002. His job title at that time was "Records Specialist," and his supervisor was Beverley DiGirolamo, who was the office manager of the Legal Division. In 2002, he was transferred from his duties in the law library to duties in the Service of Process Division (SPD) of DOI. His new supervisor was initially Carolyn Ash, who was asked to sign Petitioner's timesheet, and who was at a lower pay grade (13) than the Petitioner's pay grade (16). After he brought this to management's attention, Pam Edenfield was assigned to sign his timesheet. His duties involved maintaining and filing documents received by the DOI relating to the service of process in the legal cases filed throughout the state. The work of the division has increased greatly due to a change in the statutes, and the SPD could not process the increased workload with its existing employees. To resolve the workload issues, personnel from other portions of the legal department were transferred to the SPD. The Petitioner was one of approximately four individuals who were transferred from Legal Services Division to SPD. The decision to move the Petitioner was made by Ms. DiGirolamo and Ms. Edenfield based upon his low workload in the library and the high workload in SPD. After the Petitioner was moved, his duties were assumed as an additional duty by one of the legal secretaries who spends between four and eight hours on the activity per month. The basis for his move was explained to Petitioner by Ms. DiGirolamo and Ms. Edenfield, and by Mr. DowDell, who was their supervisor. Following his transfer, the Petitioner's performance suffered, and when he was formally counseled about it, he ultimately resigned and retired.
Recommendation Based upon 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 Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2004, 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 26th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elamir Ghattas 811 Chestwood Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dennis Silverman, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Findings Of Fact Petitioner gave Respondent's June 30, 1995 correspondence, informing Petitioner that his employment contract would not be renewed, to Petitioner's attorney. That correspondence informed Petitioner that he could appeal Respondent's decision through "the appropriate administrative structure" or the formal grievance procedures contained in Respondent's Rule 6C1-7.041, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of Rule 6C1-7.041, Florida Administrative Code, was attached to the June 30, 1995 letter. Pertinent to this proceeding is the language of a portion of the rule contained in paragraph 6C1-7.041(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows: Initiation of a proceeding under Section 120.57, F.S. shall be made by submitting a petition to the Clerk of the University of Florida, as provided in Rule 6C1-1.005, F.A.C. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the President of the University. The petition should be printed, typewritten, or otherwise duplicated in legible form on white paper. Unless printed, the impression should be on one side of the paper only, and lines shall be double-spaced and indented. The June 30, 1995 letter did not state the location or personal identity of the Clerk of the University. Rule 6C1-1.005, Florida Administrative Code, referenced in Rule 6C1-7.041(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code was not included in Respondent's correspondence. Rule 6C1-1.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The Clerk of the University is the administrative assistant in the Office of the General Counsel at 207 Tigert Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. In the absence of the individual holding this position, the administrative assistant to the Vice-President for Admin- istrative Affairs shall act as the Clerk of the University of Florida. Petitioner did not obtain and was not provided by Respondent with a copy of Rule 6C1-1.005(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's counsel did not know who was the Clerk of the University or where that office was located. Petitioner's counsel telephoned the University's information services on August 8, 1995, and asked for a telephone listing for the Clerk of the University of Florida at Tigert Hall. Information services was unable to provide such a telephone listing and referred counsel to the University's President. On August 8, 1995, Petitioner's counsel telephoned the office of the University's President and spoke with Lois Ivanko. A senior secretary in the President's office for eight years, Ivanko greets guests, opens and directs mail, and receives grievances. When informed by Petitioner's counsel of the need to file an administrative petition with the Clerk of the University of Florida on that very day, Ivanko said she would be happy to help counsel with the filing process and that he should send his law clerk, Joseph Marlar, to her, that she would take the petition and that she would file it. Marlar went to Ivanko's office on August 8, 1995, and spoke with Ivanko. Marlar explained that his mission was to file Petitioner's Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing. Marlar specifically told Ivanko that the document had to be filed with the Clerk of the University of Florida that day. Ivanko, ignorant of the existence of a Clerk for the University, assured Marlar that he was at the right place and that leaving the documents with her would constitute appropriate filing. Marlar left Petitioner's Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing with Ivanko who date and time stamped the document. Ivanko later brought the original to the office of the University's Vice- President of Academic Affairs. Ivanko placed a date and time stamp on a copy of the documents provided by Marlar so that Marlar would have proof of the filing of the document. All three documents, one original and two copies, were clearly entitled "Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing (CH.120)." Karen Grabel is the Clerk of the University of Florida. She has held that position since May 1993. Grabel works in the General Counsel's office, located at 207 Tigert Hall. Ivanko works in the Office of the President at 226 Tigert Hall on the same floor of the building as Grabel. Petitioner's Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing was not filed in Grabel's office by the required deadline of close of business on August 8, 1995. By order of the University's President dated August 23, 1995, the Petition was denied on the basis that it was not filed with the Clerk.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Petitioner's Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing to have been timely filed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, 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 19th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-33. Accepted and incorporated in HO findings, although not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Accepted, not verbatim. 4.-5. Rejected, relevance. 6. Incorporated by reference. 7.-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 10.-12. Accepted. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, relevance to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Donnelly, Esquire Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Barbara C. Wingo, Esquire University of Florida Post Office Box 113125 Gainesville, Florida 32611-3125
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and/or interest related to the hearing officer’s award of corrective payments on remand after the decision in French v. Department of Children and Families, 920 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Findings Of Fact Parties Sarah is almost 23 years old, and she is severely disabled. Her disabilities include quadriplegic cerebral palsy, developmental delay, severe osteoporosis, severe muscle spasms, scoliosis, incontinence, kidney stones, and frequent urinary tract infections. Sarah requires 24-hour assistance with all daily living functions, including bathing, feeding, dressing, brushing her teeth, and changing her diapers. Ms. French is Sarah’s mother. She is approved by the Agency to provide personal care assistance (PCA) services to Sarah under the CDC+ program. The Agency has administered the CDC+ program since October 1, 2004. Prior to that, the program was administered by DCF. Background Sarah applied for the CDC+ program in July 2002, and was enrolled in the program in October 2002. Prior to that, Sarah was enrolled in the Home and Community Based Developmental Services (HCBS) program pursuant to which she received PCA services from outside providers, rather than her mother. Sarah’s initial support plan under the CDC+ program funded only six hours per day of PCA services. The plan was increased to 12 hours per day of PCA services in August 2003 after Sarah successfully appealed her initial support plan to a DCF hearing officer. On October 31, 2003, DCF unilaterally disenrolled Sarah from the CDC+ program based upon its determination that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. Thereafter, Sarah was reenrolled in the HCBS program, which required her to hire someone other than her mother to provide her PCA services. Ms. French was paid for the period of November 1-15, 2003, even though Sarah was no longer enrolled in the CDC+ program at the time. For that period, however, Ms. French was paid for only six hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) rather than the 12 hours per day required by Sarah’s support plan. Ms. French stopped receiving payment under the CDC+ program on November 16, 2003. She began receiving payment again on April 1, 2005, when, as discussed below, Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program. Ms. French has been paid for 12 hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) since April 1, 2005. Sarah timely filed an appeal of DCF’s decision to disenroll her from the CDC+ program, but the appeal was not docketed and referred to a DCF hearing officer until January 2004. The hearing officer held a hearing on the appeal over a period of eight days between March 22 and August 5, 2004. The length of the hearing was attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the hearing officer was not a lawyer, and she allowed both parties to present extensive testimony and evidence on matters seemingly unrelated to the central issue in the appeal, i.e., whether Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The hearing officer’s Final Order, dated November 22, 2004, concluded that Sarah should not have been disenrolled from the CDC+ program because DCF failed to prove that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The Final Order did not award retroactive corrective payments to Sarah for the period that she was wrongfully disenrolled from the CDC+ program, and it denied Sarah’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Sarah appealed the Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. DCF did not cross-appeal. Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program on April 1, 2005, while the appeal was pending. The record does not reflect why Sarah was reenrolled on that date, which is more than four months after the hearing officer’s Final Order. The appellate court issued its opinion on January 6, 2006, and held that Sarah was entitled to corrective payments from DCF1 retroactive to the date that she was disenrolled from the CDC+ program. The court remanded the case to the DCF hearing officer to determine the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah. The court was clear as to the scope of the remand; it held: In summary, both [federal and state law] require remand for the hearing officer to order corrective payments retroactive to October 31, 2003. We believe the amount of corrective payments can be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, but the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary. (Emphasis supplied) The court also awarded attorney’s fees against DCF for the appeal. The court remanded the issue of the amount of appellate fees, and the issue of Sarah’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for the underlying DCF hearing, to DOAH for determination because, according to the court, the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction over those issues since the applicable attorney's fee statute refers only to Administrative Law Judges. DCF filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the court on February 10, 2006. The mandate was issued by the court on March 1, 2006. Sarah was the prevailing party in the proceedings that culminated in the appeal. The Agency paid Sarah $129,595 in attorney’s fees and costs related to the proceedings that culminated in the appeal.2 Remand Proceeding On April 7, 2006, over a month after the mandate was issued by the appellate court, the DCF hearing officer entered an Order accepting the remand and directing the parties to advise her if the retroactive payments mandated by the court had been made. The Order required Sarah to provide invoices to the Agency reflecting the monthly timesheets for the “retroactive periods,” and required the Agency to respond to the invoices and identify any disputes. The Order stated that a hearing would be set if necessary to resolve any dispute regarding the amount of the retroactive payment. On April 19, 2006, in compliance with the hearing officer’s Order, Sarah filed monthly invoices and a demand for payment totaling $211,312.50, “exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees.” The invoices sought payment for an additional six hours per day of PCA services from July 2002 (when Sarah applied for the CDC+ program) to November 15, 2003 (when Ms. French stopped receiving payment for six hours per day of services); payment for 12 hours per day of PCA services from November 16, 2003, to March 31, 2005 (the period during which Ms. French received no payment); and payment of half of those hours at the overtime rate of $26.25 per hour instead of the standard rate of $17.50 per hour. The Agency responded to the demand for payment in a status report filed with the DCF hearing officer on May 26, 2006. In the status report, the Agency took the position that, consistent with the appellate court’s decision, the amount of corrective payments owed to Sarah is limited to the period of disenrollment -- October 31, 2003 through March 31, 2005 -- and that the amount should be calculated based upon the approved hourly rate of $17.50 with no overtime pay. The Agency, therefore, requested the DCF hearing officer to “enter an order finding $97,230 as the appropriate amount of compensation due as the corrective action ordered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.” Sarah filed a reply to the Agency’s filing on June 26, 2006, in which she continued to assert that the corrective payments were not limited to the disenrollment period and that overtime pay was due. The reply also claimed that the Agency “is proving itself to be the scofflaw that the general public believes it to be,” and it requested imposition of attorney’s fees against the Agency because of its “continued delays and its attempts to starve out Ms. French.” The hearing officer set the matter for hearing because the parties were not in agreement regarding the amount of corrective payments owed. The hearing was scheduled for and held on July 17, 2006. The transcript of the July 17, 2006, hearing is not part of the record of this DOAH proceeding. Therefore, the record does not reflect the substance of the testimony presented or the nature of the evidence received at that hearing. The hearing officer entered the Remand Order on September 29, 2006. The Remand Order rejected the argument that Sarah is entitled to corrective payments for periods prior to October 31, 2003; rejected the argument that Ms. French is entitled to overtime pay; implicitly rejected the argument that “prejudgment interest” is to be included as part of the corrective payments to Sarah; concluded that DOAH (and not the DCF hearing officer) has jurisdiction to consider Ms. French’s request for interest based upon “the failure of [DCF] to process payment in a timely manner”; and awarded $105,420 in corrective payments to Sarah. The Remand Order was not appealed by either party. It was not until entry of the Remand Order that the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah was established with certainty. The Agency worked diligently after entry of the Remand Order to process the payment due to Sarah. The payment was made through a check dated November 8, 2006, which is 40 days after the date of the Remand Order. Petitioners did not prevail in the Remand Proceeding because the hearing officer rejected each of the substantive arguments they presented in the Remand Proceeding. The fact that the hearing officer awarded Sarah approximately $8,000 more than the Agency calculated that she was due in its pre-hearing status report does not make Sarah the prevailing party in the Remand Proceeding. The award was approximately half of what Sarah claimed she was due, and the difference in the amount calculated by the Agency ($97,230) and the amount awarded in the Remand Order ($105,420) was not the result of the hearing officer using the calculation methodology advocated by Sarah. Instead, the difference resulted from the hearing officer using the actual number of calendar days that Sarah was disenrolled, rather than calculating the number of days by multiplying the number of months Sarah that was disenrolled by the 28 days of service per month that were approved in Sarah’s support plan. There is no persuasive evidence that the Agency participated in the Remand Proceeding for an improper purpose, as alleged by Petitioners. Indeed, the evidence establishes that the primary reason that it was necessary for an evidentiary hearing to be held in the Remand Proceeding was the excessive and unreasonable demand made by Sarah in her initial response to the hearing officer’s Order accepting the remand from the appellate court. The Agency’s refusal to pay that amount was clearly reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. To the extent that Petitioners are complaining about having to go through additional proceedings on remand at all when the appellate court observed that the amount of corrective payments could likely be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, that complaint focuses on the conduct of the DCF hearing officer, not the Agency. It is noted, however, that the appellate court stated that “the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary.” This DOAH Proceeding Petitioners initiated this proceeding by filing the Petition with the Agency. The Agency referred the Petition to DOAH because according to the referral letter, “the Agency is without authority to determine or award attorney’s fees available under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” The Petition requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs, both for the Remand Proceeding and for this DOAH proceeding. The Petition also requests an award of prejudgment interest as part of the corrective payments as well as post- judgment interest on the corrective payments ordered in the Remand Order. The Agency disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for this proceeding or the Remand Proceeding. The Agency also disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to interest, either as part of or on the corrective payments. There is no evidence that the Agency participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose. The Agency had a legitimate basis for its opposition to the Petition giving rise to this proceeding, as shown by the fact that the Agency prevailed in this proceeding. The unreasonable demands made by Petitioners at the outset of the Remand Proceeding (and at the outset of the prior attorney’s fee case, see Endnote 2) did little to bring the litigation between the parties to an just and speedy end and, indeed, likely had the opposite effect. That said, the evidence is not persuasive that Petitioners participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose.
The Issue Whether grievance procedures set forth in the provisions challenged are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of respondent's discretion? Whether the policy and procedure directive and policy memorandum should be declared invalid as rules?
Findings Of Fact At the various institutions in which respondent houses some 29,000 prisoners, about 8,000 grievances are acted on annually. In addition, departmental personnel in Tallahassee decide 2,000 grievances annually, of which all but two or three hundred are appeals. Nineteen percent of departmental decisions on the merits of grievances are in favor of the inmate. Not every grievance has been handled in strict adherence to every particular of rule, policy directive and policy memorandum, nor are the requirements these documents lay down always identical. The hearing officer ruled that the merits of any specific grievance proceeding were not relevant. On one occasion, the correctional officer complained of in a grievance was the officer to whom investigation of the grievance was assigned. At Union Correctional Institution, Dan Williams deals with 200 to 250 grievances monthly, turning back grievances that are not signed, dated or concise, or which do not reflect resort to informal measures. Occasionally, Mr. Williams drafts a preliminary response on the merits or "combine[s] . . . [an investigative] report . . . with the directives and the institutional operating procedures and, based on a collection of those two, . . . draft[s] a preliminary response." (T. 189.) Ordinarily, a superior signs the responses Mr. Williams drafts. Petitioners are inmates at Union Correctional Institution. Joe Lewis Holland and Douglas L. Adams had grievances pending at the time of the hearing. Carl Cribbs and John Russell have filed grievances in the past, but the evidence did not show them to have filed any grievance not already disposed of. Petitioner Rufu did not testify at hearing. Petitioners do not complain of the procedures attending promulgation of Rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: Inmate Grievance Procedure. The purpose of this procedure is to provide an inmate with a channel for the administrative settlement of the legitimate grievance. A grievance is a formal complaint concerning an incident, policy, or condition with the institution or the Department of Corrections. Most valid grievances can be resolved quickly through direct contact with the staff of the institution who are responsible for the particular area of the problem. Inmates should he encouraged to use routine informal remedies prior to initiating a formal grievance. However, when an inmate feels he has sufficient reason to submit an official formal grievance, he should obtain a copy of the request form for administrative remedy or appeal; all facts should be listed accordingly. Only one grievance per form can be initiated. The grievance complaint must be filed no later than 30 calendar days from the date on which the basis of the complaint occurred, unless it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate that it was not feasible to file within such a period. The Assistant Superintendent of the institution will have the grievance complaint logged and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. He may handle the grievance personally or he may designate appropriate staff members to investigate and/or respond. If a staff member investigates and responds, he too will sign the form along with the Assistant Superintendent. The response should state clearly why the grievance is approved or disapproved. If approved, it should state what action will be taken to correct the problem. One copy will be placed in the inmate file and two copies will be returned to the inmate advising of action taken. When an inmate feels that he may be adversely affected by submission of his grievance at the institutional leval because of its sensitive nature he may mail his grievance directly to the Secretary. He must clearly indicate a valid reason for not initially bringing his complaint to the attention of the institutional staff. Grievances of this type may be sealed in an envelope by the inmate and processed through routine institutional mail channels. Institutional officials will have up to 30 days, including holidays and weekends from the receipt of the grievance to take action and respond to the inmate. When the grievance is, in the opinion of the Assistant Superintendent, of an emergency nature, a reply should be made as soon as possible. If the inmate feels his or her grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at the institutional level, he or she may appeal to the Secretary. If the inmate files a formal grievance form to the Secretary the factual basis for appeal must be clearly stated in Part A and a copy of the original grievance and response at the institutional level attached. If the inmate fails to provide a reason for appeal or attach a copy of his institutional grievance and response or the Secretary feels that the reason supplied is not adequate, the appeal must be returned to the inmate and reasons for return will be specified in Part B. The Secretary or his designated representative will have a receipt sent to the inmate. He will cause the appeal to be investigated and will have up to 30 days, including weekends and holidays from receipt of the appeal form to make a response. A copy of the response to the inmate will be sent to the superintendent and a copy filed in the Central Office. The Superintendent's copy will be reviewed and filed in the Institution. The time limit cannot be met either at the institutional or departmental level, the time limit may be extended for a reasonable period not to exceed thirty (30) days. If this action is taken the complainant will be notified in writing with the time of extension noted. A record must be made of each grievance or appeal and should contain at least the following information: Inmate name, prison number, date of receipt, subject of grievance or appeal, disposition of the grievance or appeal, and date of disposition. A copy of this record should be filed monthly in the Superintendent's or the Secretary's office. Inmates can be assured that no action will be taken against them resulting from submitting a grievance unless they knowingly and intentionally make a statement which is proved false pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. They contend that the rule does not afford a neutral, detached factfinder, and is arbitrary and capricious for that and other reasons. On the same substantive grounds, and on the additional ground that neither was promulgated as a rule, petitioners challenge Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.02 (PPD 4.07.02) and Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum 82-14 (UCI Memo 82-14) which provide: Inmate Grievance Procedure Authority: The provisions of this directive are authorized by: Florida Statutes, Chapters 944.09(2) and 945.21. Rules and Regulations of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Chapter 33-3.07. General Policy Statement: The purpose of this procedure is to provide an inmate with a channel for the administrative settlement of a legitimate grievance. A grievance is a formal complaint concerning an incident, policy or condition within an institution or the Department. Most valid grievances can be resolved quickly through direct contact with staff who are responsible in the particular area of the problem. This is the preferred course of action. Staff awareness of the importance of prompt attention and reply to these routine requests will minimize the use of formal grievance procedures. In addition to providing the inmate an opportunity of having a grievance heard, such procedure will assist the Department by providing additional means for internal solution of problems and improve lines of communication. This procedure will also provide a written record in the event of subsequent judicial or administrative review. Informal Remedy: In most cases an inmate may resolve the problem by discussing it with: The staff member responsible in the particular area of the problem. The Classification Team. The appropriate section head. Other institutional staff. This method should provide an immediate solution to the problem and can be handled by personal contact, letter or request for interview. An inmate should be encouraged to use routine informal remedy procedures prior to initiating a formal grievance. Formal Institutional Remedy: The Superintendent may designate the Assistant Superintendent as representative, delegating the authority to receive, review and investigate any grievance of an institutional nature, and to grant and implement relief as approved by the Superintendent. When an inmate has reason to submit an official grievance, a copy of the Request for Administrative Remedy, Form DC-77 (See Sample No. 1) may be obtained from the staff member designated by the Superintendent. The inmate should fill out the identifying data at the top and Part A of the request so that it is legible. All facts should be listed accurately and the aggrieved inmate is requested to substantiate that the informal remedy procedures have been exhausted as stated in the Section above on Informal Remedy. Inmates who cannot read or write or who cannot write legibly are authorized to obtain assistance from other inmates, so long as the assistance requested does not interfere with the security and good order of the institution. In cases where inmate assistance is either not available or cannot be made available, staff members will assist the inmate. Only one issue/question should be listed on each form. The form should then be forwarded to the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent. Time Limit On Filing A Grievance: The grievance must be filed no later than 30 calendar days from the date on which the grievous complaint occurred or within 30 calendar days after final action was decided which would result in a grievance complaint being initiated. An extension of the 30-day period may be granted when it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate to the satisfaction of the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent that it was not feasible to file within the initial period. Appeals must be filed within 30 calendar days following the date of disposition of the original institutional grievance. Procedures For Processing Grievance: The Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent will have the grievance logged and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. The Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent may investigate the grievance personally or may designate an appropriate staff member to investigate and prepare a report. The Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent will evaluate the investigative report for use in formal consideration of the grievance. The Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent will respond to the grievance by completing Part B of Form DC-77. If approved, the response should state what action will be taken to correct the problem. If denied, the response must state the reasons for denial and the information to justify the denial. Distribution will be as follows: The original and second copy will be returned to the inmate. The first copy will be placed in the inmate record. All grievances, except those filed directly with the Regional Director or Secretary, must be filed at the institution in which the inmate is presently assigned. When the complaint deals with a grievance that has occurred at another location, it will remain the responsibility of the staff at the inmate's present location to handle the grievance. Direct contact with staff at the inmate's prior location may he necessary in resolving the grievance. Direct Grievance Request: When an inmate feels that because of the sensitive nature or possible adversity by submission of the grievance at the institution, direct submission to the Regional Director or Secretary may be accomplished by use of Form DC-77-A (See Sample No. 2). The inmate may mail in sealed envelope the direct grievance request. The inmate must clearly indicate the reason for not initially bringing the complaint to the attention of the institution staff. Upon receipt of the direct grievance report, the Regional Director, Secretary or designee will have the grievance logged and a receipt sent to the inmate. If the Regional Director, Secretary or designee feels that the inmate's reason for not processing the complaint through institutional channels is invalid, Form DC-77-A will be returned to the inmate, with the reasons for return specified in Part B. Should it be determined that the grievance was properly channeled to the Regional Director or Secretary, the complaint will then be investigated and Part B of Form DC-77-A will be completed. If approved, the response should state what action will be taken to correct the problem. If denied, the response must state the reasons for denial and the information to justify the denial. Distribution will be as follows: Original to inmate. First copy of the response will be filed in the Office of Use Regional Director or the Office of the Secretary. Second copy will be forwarded to the Superintendent for review and subsequent filing in the institutional inmate record. Time Limit For Response: Response to grievance will be made within 30 calendar days from date of receipt. When, in the opinion of the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent, Regional Director or Secretary the grievance is of an emergency nature, a reply should be made as soon as possible. Formal Department Level Appeal: If the inmate feels the grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at the institution level, an appeal, Form DC-77-A, may be submitted to the Regional Director or Secretary. In such cases, the factual basis for the appeal must be clearly stated in Part A and a copy of Form DC-77 (the original grievance and response at the institutional level) must be attached. Appeals should be forwarded to the Regional Director or Secretary through routine institutional mail channels. If the inmate does not provide substantial reason for appeal or attach a copy of the original grievance and response (Form DC-77) and the Regional Director or Secretary determines that the reason lacks support, the appeal request will be returned to the inmate and findings for return will be specified in Part B. Action By The Regional Director Or Secretary: The Regional Director, Secretary or designee will have a record made of all Form DC-77-A (grievance appeals) received and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. The appeal will be investigated within 30 calendar days from receipt of the appeal. Distribution will be as follows: The original will be returned to the inmate. The first copy will be placed in the inmate record in the Bureau of Offender Records with a copy of Form DC-77 attached. The second copy will be sent to the Superintendent for review and subsequent filing in the institutional inmate record. When Time Limit Cannot Be Met: The period of time referred to for action at the institution, Region or Central Office level may be extended for a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days, upon finding that the circumstances are such that the initial period is insufficient to make an appropriate decision. This action must be communicated in writing to the inmate with the time of the extension noted. Record Keeping As previously stated, a record should be made of each grievance or appeal and should contain at least the following information: Inmate name Prison number Date the grievance was filed Date received Nature of grievance or appeal and issue/question to be resolved Disposition of grievance or appeal Date of disposition A copy of this record, Form DC-78 (See Sample No. 3), should be filed monthly in the Superintendent's, Regional Director's or Secretary's office. Freedom To Use Grievance Procedure: Inmates can be assured that no action will be taken against them resulting from submission of a grievance, unless, facts show acts designed to render false or misleading statements. Policy and Procedure Directive 4.07.02. 82-14.1 Authority Florida Statutes, Chapter 944.09, 945.21 Department of Corrections Policy & Procedure Directive 4.07.02. 82-14.2 Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide an inmate with a channel for the administrative settlement of a legitimate grievance. A grievance is a formal complaint concerning an incident, policy or condition within an institution or the Department of Corrections. Most valid grievances can be resolved quickly through direct contact with staff who are responsible in the particular area of the problem. This is the preferred course of action. Staff awareness of the importance of prompt attention and reply to these routine requests will minimize the use of formal grievance procedures. In addition to providing the inmate an opportunity of having this grievance heard, such a procedure assists the Administration by providing an additional vehicle for internal solution of problems and improves lines of communication. Further, it provides a written record in the event of subsequent judicial or administrative review. 82-14.3 Informal Remedy In most cases, an inmate may resolve his problem by discussing it with (1) the staff member responsible in the particular area of the problem; (2) his Treatment Team; (3) the appropriate Department Head; or (4) other institutional staff. This method should provide an immediate resolution to the problem and can be handled by personal contact, letter, request for interview form, et cetera. An inmate should be encouraged to use the informal remedy procedures prior to initiating a formal grievance. 82-14.4 Formal Institutional Remedy The Assistant Superintendents shall have the authority to receive, review, and investigate any grievance of an institutional nature and to grant and implement relief as approved by the Superintendent. When an inmate feels he has reason to submit an official grievance, he should obtain a copy of the Request for Administrative Remedy Form (DC 1-303) from the appropriate Classification Team Specialist or the Law Librarian. He should check the box marked "Assistant Superintendent" and fill out the identifying data at the top of the form and Part A of the request (DC 1-303) so that it is readable. All facts should be listed accurately, and the aggrieved inmate is directed to substantiate that the informal remedy procedures have been exhausted as stated in Section 82-14.3 above. Only one grievance per form can be initiated. The grievance is to be filed by one individual inmate with his signature only appearing on the grievance. The DC 1-303 then should be forwarded to the Assistant Superintendents' Office. Grievances submitted or signed by more than one inmate will be returned unanswered to the senders as being improperly filled out. Inmates who cannot read or write, or who cannot write legible, are authorized to obtain assistance from other inmates, so long as the assistance requested does not interfere with the security and good order of the institution. In cases where inmate assistance is either not available or cannot be made available, staff members will assist the inmate. 82-14.5 Time Limit on Filing Complaint The grievance must be filed no later than 30 calendar days from the date on which the grievous complaint occurred or within 30 calendar days after final action was decided which would result in a grievance complaint being initiated. An extension of the 30-day period may be granted when it is clearly demonstrated by the inmate to the satisfaction of the Assistant Superintendents that it was not feasible to file within the initial period. Appeals must be filed within 30 calendar days following the date of disposition of the original institutional grievance. 82-14.6 Procedures for Processing Grievance The Assistant Superintendents will have the grievance logged and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. They may investigate the grievance personally, or may designate an appropriate staff member to investigate and prepare a report for use in formal consideration of the grievance. The Assistant Superintendents will respond to the grievance (Part B), clearly stating why the grievance is approved or denied. If approved, the response should state what action will be taken to correct the problem. If denied, the response must state the reasons for denial and the information to justify denial. The first copy will he place in the inmate file, and the original and second copy will be returned to the inmate. All grievances, except those filed directly with the Regional Director or Secretary, must be filed with staff at the institution to which the inmate is presently assigned. When the complaint deals with a grievance that has occurred at another location, it will remain the responsibility of the staff at the inmate's present location to handle the grievance. Direct contact with staff at the inmate's prior location may be necessary to resolve grievances which occur under this provision. When an inmate feels that because of its sensitive nature he may be adversely affected by submission of his grievance at the institution level, he may, by checking the box marked "Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Form DC 1-303, submit his grievance directly to the Regional Director or Secretary in a sealed envelope processed through routine institutional mail channels. He must clearly indicate a valid reason for not initially bringing his complaint to the attention of the institution staff. Upon receipt of Form DC 1-303 the Regional Director, Secretary, or his designee will have the grievance logged in and a receipt sent to the inmate. If the Regional Director, Secretary, or his designee feels that the inmate's reason for not processing his complaint through institutional channels is invalid, Form DC 1-303 will be returned to the inmate, with the reasons for return specified in Part B. Should it be determined that the grievance was properly channeled to the Regional Director or Secretary, the complaint will then be investigated and the original of Form DC 1-303, with appropriate response (Part B), will be forwarded to the inmate. The first copy of the response will be filed in the office of the Regional Director or the office of the Secretary; the second copy forwarded to the Superintendent for his review and subsequent filing in the institutional inmate file. 82-14.7 Time Limit for Response Responses to grievances will be made within 30 calendar days from date of receipt. When in the opinion of the Assistant Superintendents, Regional Director, or Secretary, the grievance is of an emergency nature, a reply should be made as soon as possible. 82-14.8 Formal Department Level Appeal If the inmate feels his grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved at the institutional level, he may appeal, using Form DC 1-303, checking the appropriate box and submitting his appeal to the Regional Director, Secretary or designee. In such cases, the factual basis for appeal must be clearly stated in Part A and a copy of Form DC 1-303, the original grievance and response at the institutional level, must be attached. Appeals should be forwarded to the Regional Director or Secretary through routine institutional mail channels. If the inmate does not provide a reason for appeal, or attach a copy of his original grievance and response, or the Regional Director or Secretary feels that the reason supplied is not adequate, the appeal request will be returned to the inmate and reasons for return will be specified in Part B. 82-14.9 Action by the Director The Regional Director, Secretary or designee will have a record made of appeals received and will have a receipt sent to the inmate. He will cause the appeal to be investigated and will have up to 30 calendar days from receipt of the appeal form to make a response. The original Direct Appeal Form will be returned to the inmate. The first copy (with copy of the Institutional Appeal attached) will be placed in the inmate record in the Bureau of Offender Records. The second copy will be sent to the Superintendent for his review and subsequent filing in the institutional inmate file. 82-14.10 When Time Limit Cannot Be Met The period of time referred to for action at the institution, Region, or Department level may be extended for a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days, upon finding that the circumstances are such that the initial period is insufficient to make an appropriate decision. This action must be communicated in writing to the complainant with the time of the extension noted. 82-14.11 Record Keeping As previously stated, a record should be made of each grievance or appeal and should contain at least the following information: Inmate Name, Prison Number, Date Grievance was filed, Date of Receipt, Nature of Grievance or Appeal, and Issued Question to be resolved, Disposition of Grievance or Appeal, and Date of Disposition. A copy of this record should be filed monthly in the Assistant Superintendents', Regional Director's or Secretary's Office. 82-14.12 Freedom no Use Grievance Procedure Inmates can be assured that no action will be taken against them requiring from submission of an grievance unless they knowingly and intentionally make a statement which is proven false beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to disciplinary procedures. An inmate should report to Administrative Staff any threats or other punitive type actions taken by staff personnel. 82-14.13 Fact Finder This facility has been selected to initiate a pilot program utilizing volunteer attorneys to hear inmate grievances. These scheduled visits will be coordinated by the Assistant Superintendent for Programs, who has been designated as institutional coordinator. Hearings will he administrative in nature and the attorneys nay utilize tape recorders if desired. Fact Finders will forward their written reports to D. H. Brierton, Project Coordinator. The Fact Finder report is advisory and will be considered by the Secretary in making his final decision on the grievance. Union Correctional Institution Policy Memorandum 82-14. George W. Bedingfield, respondent's inmate grievance administrator, conceded that UCI Memo 82-14.13 states matters not covered by Rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code. As a practical matter, however, funds for the experimental project contemplated by UCI Memo 82-14.13 are now depleted. Respondent conceded at hearing that so much of PPD 4.07.02 as provides, "The aggrieved inmate is requested to substantiate that the informal remedy procedures have been exhausted and like language in UCI Memo 82-14.4, depart from Rule 33-3.07, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's proposed order includes proposed findings of fact which have been adopted, in substance, in large part. Proposed findings have been rejected where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
