The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to continue receiving vocational rehabilitation benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Ms. Virginia Ryan, Petitioner, has been a client in the Vocational Rehabilitation program since September of 1978. Pursuant to an administrative review by her counselor and specialist assigned to the Vocational Rehabilitation program, Petitioner was advised on February 1, 1980, that she was being terminated from the Vocational Rehabilitation program for the following reasons: Petitioner's case had been active since September, 1978, without accomplishment vocationally. Vocational Rehabilitation services had expended approximately Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars to rehabilitate Petitioner, with no visible results from such expenditures. Work evaluation reports completed for Petitioner at Jackson Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center indicate that Petitioner was not trainable or employable. Petitioner's participation in two vocational training sessions were without success. Counselors for vocational rehabilitative services who had serviced and counseled Petitioner concluded, based on the foregoing, that further expenditure of Federal funds would not result in any gainful employment for Petitioner. Petitioner charges that her counselor, Mrs. Harriet B. Weaver, was unprofessional and had sabotaged her training program at Charron Williams Vocational Center; had practiced reverse discrimination with respect to her counseling and efforts to rehabilitate her vocationally; was incompetent to carry out any program to rehabilitate her and had sabotaged her efforts to obtain services through a dental program. Harriet Weaver, a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor since approximately January of 1976, was assigned to service Petitioner during approximately April of 1979. Mrs. Weaver examined Petitioner's medical history file and accepted her as an orthopedic disability client. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1.) During the period April, 1979, through February, 1980, Mrs. Weaver assigned Petitioner to approximately four dentists and enrolled her in the rehabilitation program at Charron Williams Vocational School. During this period, Mrs. Weaver also obligated the Vocational Rehabilitation program to defray lodging expenses for Petitioner at the Cadillac Hotel in the amount of approximately Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. The evidence also reveals that the program expended approximately Eight Hundred Seventy-seven ($877.00) Dollars to Petitioner in taxi fares, of which approximately 70 percent represented unauthorized fares for taxicab services. Evidence also reveals that Petitioner has repeatedly appeared late for scheduled appointments with dentists, doctors, therapists, and for that matter, she arrived at the subject hearing approximately thirty (30) minutes late, with no explanation for her lateness. Doctors Wainger and Rudman determined that Petitioner was not employable and would not benefit from vocational rehabilitative training so long as her present attitude continued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's termination of Petitioner from the Vocational Rehabilitation program be UPHELD. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st Day of July, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Virginia Ryan 685 Northeast 64th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Morton Lightner, Esquire District 11 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether The Unlimited Path, Inc. (“The Unlimited Path”) committed an unlawful employment practice against Constance K. Gatewood by denying her a reasonable accommodation and/or by demoting her from her position as Program Director at Jackson Correctional Institution.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Unlimited Path contracts with the Florida Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to provide residential substance abuse counseling and re-entry services to inmates on prison grounds. The Unlimited Path has been operating since 1994 when it had 30 to 50 employees. Today, The Unlimited Path has 280 employees and operates at 20 to 24 institutions within Florida. DOC is The Unlimited Path’s primary source of revenue. If The Unlimited Path is not satisfying its contractual obligations, then DOC can terminate the contract. Therefore, it is imperative that The Unlimited Path satisfy its contractual obligations. In order to ensure that The Unlimited Path is satisfying those obligations, DOC and the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) conduct periodic reviews of The Unlimited Path’s substance abuse programs. The contract between DOC and The Unlimited Path is comprehensive. For example, one provision requires that The Unlimited Path comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”). Another provision empowers DOC to prohibit The Unlimited Path from employing a particular person at a DOC facility. Bertrand Randolph is the President of The Unlimited Path and performs all of the functions typically associated with a chief executive officer of a corporation. Mr. Randolph’s wife, Sheila Randolph, is the Executive Director of The Unlimited Path, and her duties include overseeing the operations and policies of the entire corporation. Ms. Randolph also writes The Unlimited Path’s bids. Ms. Gatewood has worked in prison-based substance abuse treatment programs since 2005. She is a master’s level certified addiction professional or a “CAP”. As a CAP, Ms. Gatewood is qualified to operate a substance abuse program. The Unlimited Path hired Ms. Gatewood on September 20, 2011, to work as a clinical supervisor at the Walton Correctional Institution (“Walton CI”). One piece of documentation associated with Ms. Gatewood’s hiring asked her to disclose whether she suffers from various medical conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, or heart disease. With regard to a category on that document entitled “other,” Ms. Gatewood noted that she experiences “[a]llergies to certain foods, chemicals, perfumes, other odors plus dyes.” However, she responded negatively to a question asking if she had ever “received a disability rating or had one assigned . . . by an insurance company or state/federal agency.” On an “Emergency Contact Information Sheet,” Ms. Gatewood disclosed that she is allergic to several foods and substances such as aspirin, sulfides, chemicals, perfumes, colognes, seafood, pork, strawberries, nuts, chocolate, red dye, and yellow dye. Ms. Gatewood also noted on the aforementioned form that she has asthma and is sensitive to extreme hot or cold conditions. However, the disclosures described above did not present a complete picture regarding the severity of Ms. Gatewood’s allergies. Specifically, those disclosures did not indicate that Ms. Gatewood’s allergies could be life- threatening. A letter dated October 7, 2003, from Dr. Mark H. Kalenian of Alabama Asthma & Allergy, P.C. presented a comprehensive description of Ms. Gatewood’s allergies and described how they could be life-threatening: The above referenced patient is a 52 year old black female initially seen on 9/13/2001 and last seen on 4/1/2003. Her diagnoses include allergic rhinitis, asthma, dermographic Urticaria, Urticaria/angioedema, and multiple drug allergies. She breaks out in hives and can get facial swelling when ingesting MSG, scupper dines, vanilla ice cream, red #40 and yellow #5 dyes, shellfish, and Advil-related anti-inflammatory drugs. Her main problems that may affect her work are smoke, chemicals and/or perfumes which trigger sinus allergy type symptoms, lip swelling, dizziness, shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis (a potentially life- threatening reaction). These potential exposures to smoke, cologne, perfume, scents or chemicals, extreme hot/cold air, polluted air at work whether in the air or on co-workers could potentially trigger a severe allergic, asthmatic or anaphylactic reaction, which could send her to the emergency room, close off her airway and drop her blood pressure and be potentially life threatening. She should work in a clean air environment, away from co-workers who smoke or wear scented lotions or perfumes, away from polluted air and away from extremes of hot or cold. Avoidance is the best treatment for her, although she needs to continue on all asthma and allergy medications. Please consider implementing a policy of no perfume/cologne or strong scents worn on trainees, and people should smoke outside. As discussed in more detail below, Ms. Gatewood did not share the above-referenced letter with The Unlimited Path until April of 2015.2/ Ms. Gatewood’s Tenure at The Unlimited Path Prior to July 2015 During her tenure with The Unlimited Path, Ms. Gatewood has worked as the Program Director of substance abuse rehabilitation programs at three different DOC facilities: Lowell CI, Jackson CI, and the Northwest Florida Regional Annex. At The Unlimited Path, a program director is responsible for all aspects of a treatment program at a DOC facility. Ms. Gatewood’s allergies became well-known to those who worked around her. Any sort of strong scent presented a problem. For example, Ms. Gatewood’s co-workers could not heat fish in a microwave because of the resulting aroma, and they could not use hand soap. There is no dispute that The Unlimited Path’s management (prior to November of 2014) properly addressed any complaints made by Ms. Gatewood. According to Ms. Randolph, “any time there was a concern, we would address it with the employee or the site by holding a staff [meeting], requesting that people refrain from heavily scented products. I mean, we – we even allowed for there to be some cleaning schedule changes at sites to accommodate her allergies. So we tried very hard to respect the fact that she was sensitive.” The Unlimited Path also allowed Ms. Gatewood to set the standard for soap in the bathrooms. Nevertheless, Ms. Gatewood’s allergies were an issue throughout her tenure at The Unlimited Path. As explained below, Ms. Gatewood cites three instances in which The Unlimited Path allegedly ignored requests from her for a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the ADA. In other words, Ms. Gatewood alleges that The Unlimited Path began ignoring her requests for a reasonable accommodation in November of 2014. The Unlimited Path began operating a substance abuse rehabilitation program at Jackson CI in January of 2014, with Ms. Gatewood as the Program Director. In approximately November of 2014, counselors under Ms. Gatewood’s supervision were wearing scented products, and the aromas from those scented products were being transferred to documents that Ms. Gatewood had to review in her capacity as Program Director. As a result, Ms. Gatewood experienced allergic reactions and began leaving documents in filing cabinets overnight in order for the scent to dissipate. On November 5, 2014, Ms. Gatewood addressed the following e-mail to Sheila Randolph: This message is to seek advice regarding employees that continue to wear scented products in the workplace which is creating complications because the paperwork is extremely saturated with perfume/cologne/aftershave/lotion scents so strong that I am experiencing allergic reactions signing the paperwork. I have addressed this issue in staff meeting[s], however, it seems not to matter with certain staff. Ms. Russell’s entire caseload charts were so strongly scented today, I asked Ms. Dandridge to place them in the file cabinet because my system could not tolerate the smell nor could I continue signing off on the individual sessions. I became very ill and had to go outside to get fresh air in order to breathe. Also, I know you want me to provide leadership training to Mr. Bell, however, the scented aftershave and hand product he wears makes it extremely difficult for me to interact in close proximity with him, and sign his paperwork. Today, I mentioned to him that I was experiencing an allergic reaction and my eyes were stinging so badly I could not sign his chart. Later I overhead him say “if someone is that sensitive this is not the environment to work in.” At this point, I am unable to perform the duties of my job due to these strong scents that I am affected by smelling and touch. There is a DOC policy that addresses strong scents in the workplace. I don’t want the closed charts to arrive in Tallahassee smelling like a perfume factory, and lastly these scents are very attractive to the inmates. On April 9, 2015, Ms. Gatewood addressed the following e-mail to her immediate supervisor, Amie Bishop: At your earliest convenience I need to speak with you regarding two issues that involve Counselor Karlicia Rogers. Scented products in the workplace that has been address[ed] in the past. She is now wearing heavily scented hand products when completing documentation. Documentation deficiencies regarding three charts that were not countersigned when the client was enrolled into the program, and correcting my documentation in the chart. Later that day, Ms. Gatewood transmitted another e-mail to Ms. Bishop and copied Sheila Randolph. Within the e-mail, Ms. Gatewood expressed an issue regarding Mr. Bell. However, she also referred to the ADA: Yesterday, after Staff Meeting, I considered Mr. Bell’s behavior inappropriate. In front of staff members, he made a comment regarding Ms. Chavers who was not present in the room at the time. He said, “If you are that sensitive you don’t need to be working here.” This was regarding an incident earlier during staff meeting when Ms. Rogers reported information she overheard from Ms. Chavers’ group and (Ms. Rogers) said she wanted clarification. Ms. Chavers thought Ms. Rogers was targeting her and told her so during the meeting. Ms. Rogers explained that she was not targeting her, and after numerous attempts to convince her she was not being targeted, Ms. Chavers excused herself and left the meeting. It was [about] time to go, I went to look for Ms. Chavers, and did not feel the need to keep Mr. Bell overtime to address his behavior. However, this morning, I advised Mr. Bell that I overheard the remark and wanted to address it with him. I mentioned that in the past I overheard him make the same remark about me when he thought I was out of the room (re: scented products in the workplace, and allergic effect it causes me). I further mentioned that I was surprise[d] he would commit the very same act after having been talked to by the Corporate Office. He remembered the incident stating Ms. Clark had advised him not to wear scented products in the workplace, however, she agreed with him regarding his opinion that if I was that sensitive, I did not need to be working here. He further stated that she did not know that I was still upset by the incident, and he began to apologize profusely. I emphasized to him that I was not still upset about that incident. However, my concern is the comment is totally inappropriate in the workplace because of the following reasons: (1) the forum in which he made the comment. The person he was talking about was not present, (2) the possibility of influencing staff members present to feel the same way he does which creates tension in the workplace, (3) in my situation, it is essential to recognize the Americans with Disabilities Act, (4) re: Ms. Chavers it was inappropriate for him to say where she can work, and (5) he continues to make this comment in total disregard of the effect. Hopefully, Mr. Bell will not continue this behavior, however, I do want to keep you in the loop. (emphasis added). Ms. Randolph responded to Ms. Gatewood via e-mail on April 9, 2015, by stating that, This is the first time I’ve heard you make mention of ADA for your condition. We have never gotten any medical documentation from you regarding special accommodations for your sensitivities and yet, we have continued to be supportive of your allergies and the needs you have regarding scents and strong odors. If you are stating that you have a condition covered under the ADA, we need documentation in support of that so that we can explore our responsibilities in that regard further. Via an e-mail dated April 16, 2015, Ms. Gatewood responded to Ms. Randolph’s request by attaching a note dated April 15, 2015, from Dr. Kalenian recommending that Ms. Gatewood have a fragrance free environment due to asthma and chemical sensitivity. Ms. Gatewood also attached Dr. Kalenian’s October 7, 2003, letter that was quoted above in paragraph number 14. In addition, Ms. Gatewood reiterated in her April 16, 2015, e-mail that “the current source of issues for me is when counselors use heavily scented hand products when handling inmates’ charts that I am required to countersign as the Qualified Supervisor.” To the extent that Ms. Gatewood’s November 5, 2014, e-mail amounts to a request for a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, her subsequent e-mail on April 9, 2015, indicates that The Unlimited Path addressed her concerns regarding Mr. Bell’s use of scented aftershave. Moreover, The Unlimited Path conducted a staff meeting at some point between November 5, 2014, and December 25, 2014, at Jackson CI and trained the staff members on workplace grooming etiquette and being sensitive to co-workers’ allergies. To the extent that Ms. Gatewood’s April 9, 2015, e-mails amount to requests for a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, The Unlimited Path mandated in May of 2015, that female staff members at Jackson CI no longer wear scented lotions. In addition, The Unlimited Path prohibited liquid soap in the bathroom at Jackson CI. To the extent that any of the e-mails discussed above amount to requests for a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that The Unlimited Path took appropriate actions to satisfy those requests. Aside from the issues regarding her allergies, Ms. Gatewood’s tenure at The Unlimited Path has been marked by difficulties with DOC. For example, Ms. Gatewood did not have a good working relationship with the assistant warden of programs at Lowell CI when she was the Program Director there. As a result, Ms. Randolph encountered resistance when she sought permission from DOC to transfer Ms. Gatewood from Lowell CI to Jackson CI. Margaret Agerton, the Assistant Bureau Chief in DOC’s Bureau of Programs, felt as if The Unlimited Path was transferring a problem from one place to another. Nevertheless, Ms. Agerton approved the transfer with the caveat that this would be the last one. Events Leading to Ms. Gatewood’s Demotion On June 2, 2015, Ms. Gatewood requested leave from Thursday, July 16, 2015, through Friday, July 24, 2015, and her request was approved the next day. Because DCF is responsible for licensing and regulating substance abuse and mental health facilities throughout Florida, Michael Van Bebber of DCF arrived on July 23, 2015, at Jackson CI in order to conduct an audit. The Unlimited Path had received advance notice approximately two weeks beforehand. At the time of the audit, Jackson CI was treating 68 inmates. Even though Mr. Van Bebber considers The Unlimited Path to be one of the highest performing substance abuse providers that he reviews, he was disturbed by the state of the treatment program at Jackson CI. Three counselors employed by The Unlimited Path at Jackson CI had resigned within the previous week, and there were not enough counselors for the 68 people receiving treatment. In addition, Mr. Van Bebber considered the treatment facility to be too small for the number of people in the program. In his opinion, the facility was overcrowded, and the overcrowding caused the inmates to be extremely agitated. Mr. Van Bebber felt unsafe and locked himself in an on-site office. With regard to the overall functioning of the program at Jackson CI, Mr. Van Bebber concluded that The Unlimited Path was not performing at the level he would expect from an established provider of residential treatment programs. In fact, The Unlimited Path almost got a warning that could have resulted in the loss of its license at Jackson CI. Because Mr. Van Bebber considered DOC to be equally responsible for the problems at Jackson CI, the warning was not issued.3/ At the time of the audit, Michael Dozier worked for The Unlimited Path, and he substituted as the Program Director at Jackson CI during Ms. Gatewood’s vacation. Mr. Dozier has over 25 years of experience with prison residential treatment communities. He is recognized as an authority on residential treatment programs/communities. Upon arriving at Jackson CI, Mr. Dozier spoke to The Unlimited Path’s staff members and estimated that 50 percent of those to whom he spoke were looking for another job. As Mr. Dozier examined the physical area housing the substance abuse treatment program, he noticed that the facility was unclean and that many of the inmates were disheveled in appearance. This indicated to Mr. Dozier that there was a lack of structure and accountability. On July 23, 2015, Mr. Dozier wrote a memo to the “Executive Leadership” of The Unlimited Path recommending the “immediate removal” of Ms. Gatewood as the Program Director of Jackson CI: First, let me start by saying I have spent the past week evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our Jackson CI RTC with hopes of identifying the direct cause of high staff turnover, staff resignations without notice, high staff dissatisfaction, and high levels of inmate frustration. During my review, I was very discouraged by what I found. The program space was very dirty with trash cans overflowing, negative graffiti on the walls, chairs disorganized in group space, and counseling offices discombobulated. I also noticed heavy layers of dust and spider webs in the windows [along with] hanging poster paper with inappropriate writing on them. As I focused my attention on the program, I quickly realized that there was no structure in the program. There appeared to be no accountability when it came to community expectations. [R]esidents were walking around with their shirts out, failing to wear their ID, using abusive language and consistently giv[ing] the staff negative feedback when being directed. After speaking to several structure members, I received the following feedback: the last structure meeting was held over three months ago, staff is not assigned to departments, there are no department meetings, no visual display of assigned structure positions and no systems for behavior management/behavior shaping. It was very disappointing to witness the disarray in Morning Meeting and Wrap-up. [T]hose meetings had no structure or desired outcome and residents expressed no trust of the environment. It was clear that staff had been receiving little to no direction from the program director when it came to managing the community and creating program expectations. During my interviews with staff, it was apparent that the director spent most of the time being punitive towards staff focusing on issues such as the way they wore their hair, what they [were] wearing, what lotion they were using and what deodorant they had on. It was also reported that the director would always make negative comments about the corporate office, negative comments about other employees, and a clear dissatisfaction with the contract manager. [S]taff also stated that if they complained about anything the director would defiantly retaliate against them using their request[s] for time off, [the] dress code, clinical files, or [by assigning that staff member to] the difficult clients that week. I was clearly concerned about the staff morale, lack of leadership and the poor client satisfaction I heard over the past four days. As you know, the program director has to be seen as the ultimate role model in the Therapeutic Community. Based on my findings, I am recommending the immediate removal of the Program Director. On July 27, 2015, The Unlimited Path removed Ms. Gatewood from her position as Program Director at Jackson CI and reassigned her to a counselor position at the Northwest Florida Regional Annex. A memorandum signed by May-Li Clark, Ms. Gatewood’s immediate supervisor at the time, explained why Ms. Gatewood was demoted: During the dates of 7/21/15 – 7/23/15, while Mr. Dozier, State Director, was onsite at Jackson CI’s RTC, several issues were noted that clearly reflect lack of leadership within the program. The following issues were noted: No structure within the program; last structure meeting was held over three (3) months ago, no staff assigned to the departments within the community; department meetings with the community were not being held, no visual display of assigned structure position; and no system for behavior management/behavior shaping within the program. Morning Meetings and Wrap-Up Meetings were unorganized with no desired outcome. There was no accountability in regards to community expectations as the inmate/clients were not in Class A uniform, did not have ID’s, were allowed to use profane language and did not follow staff directives. It was apparent that the inmate/clients were experiencing a high level of frustration. Additionally, the inmate/clients expressed no trust within the treatment environment. The memorandum also held Ms. Gatewood responsible for a high amount of turnover among counselors at Jackson CI: Between the dates of 7/17/15 – 7/22/15, two staff members quit without notice and one staff member was escorted off the compound by Jackson CI Administration. In addition to the immediate staff turnover concerns, it has been noted that the program at Jackson CI has experienced a high level of staff turnover since The Unlimited Path took over operations of the program. Issues that were noted which have been the main contributing factors to staff turnover include: 1) program space (staff work space) was unsanitary with trashcans overflowing, layers of dust and spider webs in the windows, disorganization of program and office space, negative graffiti on the walls and hanging poster paper with inappropriate writing on them; (2) staff receiving little to no direction from the program director regarding program structure, creating and managing program expectations and minimal training regarding clinical file documentation; and 3) fear of retaliation when speaking of concerns or seeking assistance. Ms. Gatewood signed the memorandum but noted that she did not agree with its contents and would challenge the decision.4/ Since the end of July 2015, Ms. Gatewood has been working as a Counselor at the Northwest Florida Regional Annex. As a Counselor, Ms. Gatewood does not have to handle the paperwork of other counselors. The greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that Ms. Gatewood’s demotion was retaliation for her repeated complaints about co-workers being insensitive about her allergies. In other words, The Unlimited Path had valid reasons for demoting Ms. Gatewood.
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 Constance K. Gatewood’s Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 22nd day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed assisted living facility (ALF), committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate ALFs licensed pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Ms. Rodriguez was an owner and administrator of Respondent, an ALF licensed by Petitioner. Respondent operates in Broward County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, ALF administrators were required to receive core training administered by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. At the time she took the core training, Ms. Rodriguez was not required to pass a final examination. Section 400.452(2), Florida Statutes, provides, in part, that effective July 1, 1997, all persons taking the core training must pass a competency examination to be administered by the Department of Elderly Affairs. 4. Effective April 20, 1998, Rule 58A-5.0191(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, provides that any ALF administrator who did not attend mandatory periodic training updates must retake core training and must pass the competency examination. In 1998 and 1999, Ms. Rodriguez failed to attend mandatory training updates. On April 11, 2000, Maryanne Clancey conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. Ms. Clancey cited two Class III deficiencies that are pertinent to this proceeding. The first deficiency was Ms. Rodriguez's failure to attend mandatory core training updates. That failure justified the first Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey. The second deficiency was the Respondent's failure to maintain an accurate up-to-date Medication Observation Record (MOR), which is required for each resident of an ALF. Ms. Clancey's determination that Respondent's MOR was inaccurate was based on the records for a resident of the ALF who will be referred to as Resident 1. Resident 1's record reflected that he had received certain prescribed medications at 9:00 a.m. on the morning of April 11, 2000. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Resident 1 was available to take his medicine at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2000. Ms. Clancey testified that she had been told by staff that Resident 1 was in the hospital that morning. Ms. Rodriguez testified Resident 1 had gone to the hospital during the early morning hours on April 11, 2000, but that Resident 1 had returned from the hospital by 9:00 a.m. that day. There was no other evidence as to whether Resident 1 had or had not taken his prescribed medicine that day. Based on the conflict between equally credible testimony, it cannot be determined that Resident 1 was not at the facility at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2000, as alleged by Petitioner, and it cannot be concluded that Resident 1 did not take his or her prescribed medicine that day. The alleged Class III deficiency pertaining to medical records should not be sustained based on the allegation that Resident 1 could not have taken his prescribed medicine as reflected on the MOR. The Class III deficiency pertaining to the medical records did not depend alone on the allegation that Resident 1 could not have taken his prescribed medicine on April 11, 2000. Ms. Clancey also observed that Resident 1's MOR for the month of March 2000 reflected that Resident 1 had received Cyprohepatadine three times a day for the entire month. There was no indication that Resident 1 had been administered Prozac. Ms. Clancey determined from Resident 1's pharmacist that Resident 1's physician had discontinued Cyprohepatadine on March 28 and had ordered Prozac on March 15. Ms. Rodriguez admitted that Resident 1's medical records failed to reflect those changes. The inaccuracies in Resident 1's MOR justified the second Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey. Respondent was ordered to correct both Class III deficiencies by May 10, 2000. George Tokesky is the ALF Program Manager for the Department of Elder Affairs in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Rodriguez contacted Mr. Tokesky after Ms. Clancey's visit to determine what she needed to do about the core training. Mr. Tokesky explained to her that she would have to retake the core training program and pass the competency examination. Ms. Rodriguez took the core training program from June 6 to June 13, 2000, but she failed the competency examination. As of the final hearing, Ms. Rodriguez had not passed the competency examination. On June 27, 2000, Leonard Meerow conducted a follow-up visit at Respondent's facility to determine whether the facility had corrected the Class III deficiencies that Ms. Clancey had cited. The first Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey pertaining to Ms. Rodriguez's core training had not been corrected. Mr. Meerow observed continued Class III deficiencies pertaining to medical records during the follow-up visit. Specifically, MOR records for three residents reflected that each resident had been administered his or her hour of sleep medication. The entries had been made before 4:00 p.m. Ms. Rodriguez admitted that these entries were incorrect. The second Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey pertaining to medical records had not been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent failed to timely correct two Class III deficiencies. Petitioner should assess an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 per violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether HRS should license 23 comprehensive rehabilitation beds to TMRMC, at the same time reducing general acute care beds licensed at TMRMC by 23? Whether, prior to midnight June 30, 1983, TMRMC had 23 comprehensive rehabilitation beds in service?
Findings Of Fact There are "several buildings on the campus" (T. 21) at TMRMC, including the Extended Care Building on Hodges Drive which houses 53 hospital beds, and another building that houses 60 psychiatric hospital beds as well as 60 nursing home beds. Elsewhere there are an additional 598 hospital beds at TMRMC. TMRMC was licensed at 771 beds (including 60 nursing home beds) on February 3, 1983, when TMRMC's chief operating officer, J. Craig Honaman, wrote Mr. Konrad in HRS' Office of Health Planning and Development as follows: We would like to inform you of an alteration in our acute bed utilization and request your observations relating to the need for a Certificate of Need application to reassign the title of the bed function. Historically, Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center has provided rehabilitative services to inpatients of an acute nature, as well as through a progressive care approach in a skilled facility.... Therefore, we intend to reassign the 53 beds currently utilized in the skilled nursing facility to a medical rehabilitation unit. The change would not affect our license bed capacity. Joint Exhibit No. 6. In reply, Mr. Porter wrote Mr. Honaman a letter dated February 17, 1983, stating: In that you have been providing rehabilitative services to inpatients on a continuous basis, and there will be no increase in licensed bed capacity, this reassignment of beds is not reviewable according to Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede, the Certificate of Need review process Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Effective June 8, 1983, Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code, set out a bed need methodology for comprehensive medical rehabilitation inpatient services. Effective July 1, 1983, Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, was amended to provide: The number of beds for the rehabilitation or psychiatric service category for which the department has adopted by rule a specialty-bed-need methodology under $381.494 shall be specified on the face of the hospital license. Before July 1, 1983, general acute care hospitals like TMRMC had been free to allocate beds among various specialty services on a day to day basis. Until September 1, 1984, HRS issued and renewed TMRMC's license authorizing it to operate a hospital without specifying the number of beds to be dedicated to specialty services. In the fall of 1983, TMRMC corresponded with Blue Cross, the medicare intermediary for Florida, requesting a distinct part provider number for rehabilitation services, and enclosing Mr. Porter's February 17, 1983, letter to Mr. Honaman. Blue Cross forwarded these materials to the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) in Atlanta, who then contacted HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification in Jacksonville for verification. The Office of Licensure and Certification advised HCFA that their records did not reflect rehabilitation beds licensed to TMRMC. EXPANDING SERVICES When Frances Elise Brown, now TMRMC's Technical Director of Rehabilitation, came to work at TMRMC in 1971, as a physical therapist, TMRMC did not offer speech therapy, occupational therapy or recreational therapy, and did not own what became the Extended Care Building. After TMRMC acquired the Extended Care Building, "there were some physical therapy services provided in that facility." (T. 107) Thereafter, the intensity of physical therapy services increased campus-wide, and in 1978 occupational therapy was "initiated both at Extended Care and in the hospital at the same time." Id. In 1980, TMRMC "initiated speech therapy, which again was delivered both in the hospital and Extended Care at the same time." (T. 107) In 1981, TMRMC acquired an existing outpatient facility that offered physical, occupational and speech therapy. TMRMC "provide[s] services indifferent areas, acute care, long-term, nursing home, home health, in/outpatient services." (T. 102) Recreational therapy and occupational therapy are also available at TMRMC; and TMRMC enjoys a good working relationship with Williams Orthotics a firm which fits braces and prostheses for patients who need them. Respiration therapy is available as are psychological counseling and the services of a social worker. Nursing services are available, although nobody specifically trained in rehabilitation nursing is on staff. A psychiatrist and an audiologist serve as consultants, but no physiatrist consults. No substantial changes in rehabilitation services being provided at Extended Care have occurred during the last three years or so, although it might have been during that period that a speech pathologist began spending more time (ten hours a week) at the Extended Care Building. (T. 119) Neither before or after Mr. Honaman's letter of February 3, 1983, announcing "an alteration in . . . acute [sick bed utilization," Joint Exhibit No. 6, and an "inten[t] to reassign the 53 [sic] beds," Joint Exhibit No. 6, did TMRMC "change anything about those beds." (T 69) For business reasons, TMRMC was waiting for a distinct part provider number for rehabilitation before proceeding. At one time the thought was to offer comprehensive rehabilitation services in a joint venture with Rehab Hospital Services Corporation, but negotiations collapsed in May of 1983. EXTENDED CARE The Extended Care Building has 23 beds "to the right . . . as one goes in" (T. 66) and 30 beds to the left, but there are no "delineated beds" (T. 116) reserved exclusively for patients in need of rehabilitation. The Extended Care Building houses medically stable patients who need skilled nursing services, whether or not they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation. Administratively distinct from TMRMC's acute care facility, the Extended Care Building as a whole has a part-time medical director and a distinct provider number, although TMRMC never received the provider number it sought for rehabilitation beds only. Patients admitted to the Extended Care Building from acute care facilities at TMRMC must first be discharged as acute care patients. They are admitted into the Extended Care Building "according to the screening criteria for extended care." (T. 116) There are no separate rehabilitation admission criteria. The average stay for patients in the Extended Care Building is approximately one month. On an application for hospital license, TMRMC listed the 53 beds in the Extended Care Building as extended care beds on June 22, 1977. On an application for hospital license dated September 7, 1977, TMRMC listed the 43 beds in the Extended Care Building under the category "SNF (D.P.)," meaning skilled nursing facility, distinct part. TMRMC reported the beds in this category through April 23, 1981, on its renewal applications for hospital licensure. On March 17, 1983, for the first time in a licensure application as far as the evidence shows, TMRMC listed the 53 beds in the Extended Care Building as "SNF/Rehab," meaning skilled nursing facility/rehabilitation. Joint Exhibit No. 1. INVENTORY TAKE A joint communication from the director of HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification and its deputy assistant secretary for health planning and development dated December 8, 1983, advised hospital administrators that HRS had "arrived at a count of the number of beds in each category for each hospital in Florida," went on to state: We are asking that each hospital review and verify or comment on these counts prior to final agency action. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. In response, TMRMC's Mr. Honaman wrote HRS' Jackie Jefferson on December 20, 1983, reporting "[v]arious errors." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. An attachment to Mr. Honaman's letter of December 20, 1983, reported 23 "Comprehensive Rehabilitation" beds at TMRMC. HRS caused notice to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 17, 1984, Vol. 10, No. 7 of its count of licensed beds in general hospitals by bed type by district, and reported no comprehensive rehabilitation beds at TMRMC. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Mr. Honaman wrote Mr. Rond, administrator of HRS' Comprehensive Health Planning, stating that the "listing is incorrect, as previously reported to you . . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. After exchanging letters on the matter with John Adams, a licensure supervisor for HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 15 and 16, TMRMC requested a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. HRS memoranda written on July 26, 1984, reflected HRS' view that TMRMC had no comprehensive rehabilitation beds, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, and that recognition of such beds hinged on their being "CARF certified." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. CARF STANDARDS The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) publishes accreditation criteria and standards for facilities serving people with disabilities. The Extended Care Building meets the safety requirements for physical facilities laid down by CARF (T. 122) and most of the services that CARF requires be offered TMRMC does offer, but TMRMC's Ms. Brown conceded (outside the hearing) that comprehensive rehabilitation is not available at TMRMC. TMRMC's M. T. Mustian was also quoted at hearing as acknowledging that TMRMC does not have a comprehensive rehabilitation program within the meaning of Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code, which references the CARF standards. Implicit throughout the CARF standards is the concept of a distinct rehabilitation unit, and there are explicit references to, e.g., "staff organization under the chief executive." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, p. 11. "Designated staff should be assigned to the rehabilitation program. Id., p. 39. The standards require that a rehabilitation facility "have clearly written criteria for admission." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, p. 27. Beds should be placed in "a designated area which . . . is staffed . . . for the specific purpose of providing a rehabilitation program." Id., p. 39. With respect to medical staff, the standards provide that the "physician responsible for the person's rehabilitation program should possess training and/or experience in rehabilitation" and that the "physician should attend and participate actively in conferences concerning those served." Id., at 39. "Rehabilitation nursing" is to be furnished in addition to basic medical nursing. Id. No staff are assigned exclusively to the putative 23-bed unit, nor are records kept separately for rehabilitation beds. TMRMC does not employ a rehabilitation nurse anywhere. There is no medical director of the comprehensive rehabilitation program TMRMC claims to have. The admitting physician sets the course of treatment and decides about discharge. Admitting physicians do not ordinarily attend conferences scheduled with the other therapists. In comprehensive rehabilitation units, physical therapists or other specialists typically spend five hours or more daily with a single patient as opposed to the 30 to 45 minutes patients at TMRMC are likely to receive from any one therapist. There are no cancer or cardiac rehabilitation patients at TMRMC. The primary caseload consists of stroke victims, patients recovering from joint replacement surgery, "amputee[s and] a few close head injuries." (T. 103) Most patients are older than 45 or 50 and none are admitted under 16 years of age. TMRMC does not furnish vocational training or try to teach people with disabilities to drive automobiles. There is no formal "activities of daily living" program. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED Both parties filed proposed recommended orders, and proposed findings of fact have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Proposed findings have been adopted, in substance unless unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS deny TMRMC's request to reclassify 23 of its licensed beds as comprehensive rehabilitation beds, without prejudice to a subsequent application if TMRMC obtains a certificate of need. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire and John Carlson, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Respondent is Elizabeth Joseph, licensed at all times pertinent to these proceedings to operate Jas Manor, an adult congregate living facility in Miami, Florida. Petitioner's employee, Elizabeth Baller, conducted an inspection of the Respondent's facility on September 18, 1986, and discovered seven persons in residence. This number of individuals exceeded the licensed capacity of Respondent's facility by one person. Ms. Baller recited the initials of those residents present in Respondent's facility on that date. Respondent's composite exhibit number 1, consisting of what are alleged to be copies of admission and discharge records, corroborates Ms. Baller's finding. The Respondent was not present at the facility at the time of this inspection. The failure of the Respondent to limit the capacity of the facility to no more than six residents posed a potential threat to the well-being of the residents. The existence of the deficiency finding was discussed with the Respondent by Baller via telephone on September 26, 1986. Ms. Baller did not visit Respondent's facility on September 24, 1986 and is without any direct personal knowledge that the number of residents in the facility on that date exceeded the licensed capacity. In the absence of such direct testimony, Petitioner exhibit number 1, alleged to be a statement of deficiencies issued by Petitioner, is not corroborative or credited with probative value as to the existence of any deficiency of the licensed facility on September 24, 1986. Petitioner exhibit number 1 does not conform to the statutory requirements for a class III deficiency citation as specified in section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, in that the exhibit fails to set forth the time within which the deficiency is to be corrected. Ms. Baller conducted a follow up visit on November 21, 1986, which, she contends, revealed seven residents in the facility, and a continuation of the violation cited previously in September. This contention of Ms. Baller is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's denial of the continuation of the deficiency at that time is supported by the testimony of Christine Sassone who regularly visits the facility on behalf of the church attended by her and Respondent. Ms. Sassone works with the residents of Respondent's facility, teaching arts and crafts there every evening, Monday through Friday, from 3:30 or 4 P.M. until 8:30 or 9:00 P.M. She was present at the facility on September 18 and November 21, 1986. She attests that there were only six residents present on either occasion. It is her testimony that individuals in excess of the licensed capacity on both of the dates in question may have been visitors from a neighboring facility known as the "Vet's Nest" which abuts Respondent's property. While discounting Sassone's unsupported testimony regarding the number of residents present on September 18, 1986, her testimony and that of the Respondent establish the fact that only six residents were present at the time of the follow up visit by Baller. Notably, Respondent's exhibit number 1 which supported the Petitioner's finding of seven residents in Respondent's facility on September 18, 1986, corroborates the testimony of Respondent and Ms. Sassone establishing that such deficiency was cured by November 21, 1986. The evidence fails to establish that the violation of Respondent discovered on September 18, 1986, was a repeat offense. It is found that the offense was not a repeat offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding the commission of a class III violation by Respondent, but assessing no civil penalty for the violation. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 March, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included in findings 2 and 3. Included in finding number 3, except for the last sentence relating to the visit of November 21, 1986. This sentence is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Included in finding number 3 and 9, except for the last sentence which is rejected. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 N.W. 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Elizabeth Joseph Administrator Jas Manor 645 N.E. 131st Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Serviced 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue May Petitioner terminate vocational rehabilitation services to Respondent, specifically, vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 10, F.A.C., for a two year program to become a newspaper writer? HEARING AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Kay Nelson and had admitted two exhibits. Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the oral testimony of Tom Hawkins. Respondent had no exhibits admitted in evidence. Petitioner filed transcript of the formal hearing but has filed no proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent timely filed, within the extended time limits stipulated by the parties, a five page letter with various exhibits attached. Leave was not sought by motion for the submission of these after-filed exhibits and they have not been considered. A ruling in compliance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes is contained within the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW portion of this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marilyn McFadden, is an adult Caucasian female with a history of marital, familial, and emotional problems. Her past work history is unskilled and non-specific except for assisting a former husband who was a pentecostal preacher and evangelist and for working in her own creative jewelry business. In 1983, Respondent was referred by the federal Social Security Administration to Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services vocational rehabilitation unit (DHRS), in Sarasota, Florida. On March 14, 1983, Respondent made application for vocational rehabilitation services and funds.1 An extensive "work-up" was prepared by Kay Nelson, a DHRS employee who was a vocational rehabilitation counselor at the time. In the course of this "work-up," medical advisors to Petitioner verified to the satisfaction of Ms. Nelson that Respondent had sufficient physical disability or physical vocational handicap in her neck, shoulders, and upper back2 to qualify for DHRS vocational rehabilitation client services on the basis of a physical handicap and that Respondent would require preparation or re-training for semi-sedentary work on the basis of her past limited work history and present physical disability/handicap. At that time, Respondent did not confide in Ms. Nelson or the psychological evaluator that she had undergone prior psychiatric treatment with regard to her first divorce. Therefore, Ms. Nelson's initial assessment of Respondent's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services did not take into account that Respondent might qualify for benefits due to a mental or emotional disability. Likewise, it did not take into consideration that her psychological makeup might present a barrier to successful vocational rehabilitation or future employability. Indeed, Ms. Nelson's assessment concluded that Respondent was then psychologically fit to embark on a two year college course so as to enter the occupational grouping of "Newswriter 131.267-214." In order to achieve the goal of rendering Respondent employable, Respondent on her own behalf and Kay Nelson on behalf of DHRS entered into a written individualized written client services program set out in a three page document-dated July 12, 1983. (P-1) Before entering into the written program, Respondent and Nelson orally agreed that the services set forth in the written program had a reasonable expectation of getting Respondent back to work. In addition to counseling, guidance, assistance with placement, and other services to help Respondent achieve employability, the written program specifically provided for Respondent to pursue a Mass Communications "Journalism) AA [Associate of Arts] degree at Manatee Junior College by completing 60 semester hours at 517.00 per hour for a total of $1,020.00. In the "Counseling and Guidance Goals" portion of the written program it states as goals, "1. To encourage Marilyn's participation in New Option Program. To assist her to see her strong point-- positives. To assist her to view things as a whole and not dwell on detail." Elsewhere in the program the parties agreed, in pertinent part, to "Counselling & Guidance provided by V. R. Counselor, Double Your Opportunity Program at MJC,3 & Displaced Homemaker Programs. N/C to V.R."4 and "Placement Services provided by V.R. 9 Counselor, V.R. Placement Specialist, F.S.E.S.; and M.J.C. n/c to V.R." These services had the extensive objective of emotional support, teaching assertiveness, guiding course selection and vocational choices, and preparing Respondent for return to employment including resume preparation, job interview techniques, and proper vocational attitudes. In the "Statement of Client Agreement and Participation" portion of the written program it is spelled out that: "I, Marilyn J. McFadden; will cooperate in all phases of my Vocational Rehabilitation. I will attend all classes regularly and give my best effort in all classwork. I understand that in order for V.R. to continue at MJC, I must maintain a 2.0 GPA, keeping my counselor advised monthly of my progress at MJC in training and any expected changes in my V.R. plan. Prior to the end of each term, I will provide my counselor a written list of my expected course grades, initialed by the respective professors, as well as a listing of classes and books for the next term. I also understand that I am expected each term to contact the financial aid office and apply for any financial aid that it is determined I may be eligible to receive. Any scholarships or grant moneys I receive in addition to my PELL Grant are to be reimbursed to V.R. unless my counselor deems otherwise. I will be expected to assume financial responsibility for all my medical, therapy, and maintenance expenses. If personal or financial needs arise that would create undue hardship on my completing this training program I-am to advise my counselor prior to initiating any program changes. Any plans to continue on with a Baccalaureate degree in my ma]or field will not be considered until I have completed my two year degree and then will be dependent upon my successful completion of this training, my final G.P.A., and if my counselor and I agree that this prescribed course of action is in my best vocational interest. I understand that at the present time there is no financial obligation on the part of V.R. to fund me in a 4 year training program nor is my counselor or V.R. recommending such a program. Any major changes to my program such as change in vocational goal or additional training will require a supplemental plan. At the completion of my training program, I understand that I will be expected to work closely with those placement resources listed in my plan, keep scheduled job interviews, seek employment myself, and when appropriate employment is offered to me, return to work. "Emphasis supplied) Respondent signed and dated this program agreement. (P-1) From August 1983 until January 1984, DHRS provided Respondent with money for some tuition costs until she received a Pell education grant, provided her with funds for books, transportation, and child care for her daughter, and provided her with on-going guidance and counselling. During this period, Respondent fully complied with the signed, written program. Respondent took some remedial courses in math and English. It is not clear whether these courses were strictly remedial or are basic to an AA degree which may be used as the basis of a 4 year Baccalaureate degree, but these courses were apparently necessary to allow Respondent to remain in other courses required to qualify for an "AA" toward achieving "newswriter" employment. There is therefore insufficient evidence to support a finding that Respondent deliberately took unauthorized courses at Manatee Junior College during this period or during subsequent grading periods. On January 18, 1984, Ms. Nelson counselled with Respondent and concluded Respondent had severe emotional problems. Except for her formal job title, little information was provided concerning Ms. Nelson. No evidence of education, training or experience of Ms. Nelson was offered as a predicate for her reaching this conclusion, and indeed, Ms. Nelson personally testified that she was "not a doctor". However, upon Ms. Nelson's testimony concerning her direct, personal observations of Respondent on that date and shortly thereafter that Respondent was behaving erratically and talking incoherently and upon Respondent's reference to this period as "the breakdown," it is found that for an unspecified period of time in early 1984 Respondent was unable to comply with the written vocational rehabilitation program due to severe emotional problems. Ms. Nelson and a person named Jeanne Hinton transported Respondent to a psychiatric hospital and attempted to have her commit herself voluntarily. When Ms. McFadden refused to commit herself voluntarily, Ms. Nelson and others appeared in some type of legal proceeding in an attempt to involuntarily commit Respondent for psychiatric care. Inevitably, these incidents resulted in considerable animosity and distrust on Ms. McFadden's part toward Ms. Nelson and toward DHRS. There is no evidence that Ms. McFadden is currently under any court or Division of Administrative Hearing Order of incompetency or involuntary commitment.5 Nonetheless, based on hearsay and her own observations, Ms. Nelson, as counsellor in charge of Ms. McFadden's vocational rehabilitation benefits, determined that Ms. McFadden was ineligible for vocational rehabilitation benefits under the existing program. In large part, Ms. Nelson's decision was based upon Ms. McFadden's expressed belief that God would heal her without counselling by DHRS or a psychologist and Ms. McFadden's refusal of counselling by Ms. Nelson or any other human being. Ms Nelson appears to have concluded that such reliance on God is evidence of emotional instability. Ms. Nelson closed Respondent McFadden's file and terminated her vocational rehabilitation benefits upon grounds Respondent was "ineligible." Ms. Nelson is emphatic that the determination of ineligibility is that of the vocational counsellor and as that counsellor, she does consider Respondent ineligible because of what Ms. Nelson perceives as Respondent's emotional problems interfering with Respondent's ability to complete the agreed program and interfering with Respondent's employability. Ms. Nelson elected not to close the file upon grounds-the Respondent was "uncooperative." Respondent denies any type of mental handicap requiring remediation as of the date of formal hearing. She maintains that although she first signed the contract program which DHRS has now terminated, she thereafter decided unilaterally that her acceptance of the benefits provided thereunder was dishonest within her personal moral code because she had no intention of becoming a newswriter; that she did not intend to ever accept employment in such a field but intended to "piggyback" a four year Baccalaureate degree in journalism and possibly a Master's degree on top of the "AA" degree if she successfully completed the "AA" degree. At hearing, Respondent initially refused to comply with the terms of the program and then offered to comply with the requirements of the program as far as achieving the "AA" degree but refused to progress toward employability as a newswriter and indicated she would still reject counselling. The mutual hostility, mutual mistrust, and lack of respect for each other's point of view of Ms. Nelson and Respondent McFadden was an observable situation clearly evident throughout the entire hearing.
Recommendation That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the administrative termination of the vocational rehabilitation benefits entered into by the July 12, 1983 written client services program. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a recipient of benefits disbursed by the Respondent and herein challenges the department's practice with the administering of "shelter" payments in the Respondent's Program of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The Petitioner is a mother who presently receives full AFDC shelter assistance payments through this program. In March of 1977 she applied for these benefits and was initially determined to be ineligible. The basis of this ineligibility was the interpretation, by the department, of its rules that shelter payments were available only to recipients who had a payments obligation on the dwelling in which they lived. In other words, the Petitioner was determined to be ineligible for payments because she did not live in the same house for which she had a mortgage obligation. The department construes its rules in its Assistance Payments Manual to restrict shelter payments only to recipients who actually live in the dwelling for which they are obligated to make payments. The Petitioner later moved into the dwelling for which she makes a mortgage payment. At that time she was ruled eligible for payments and received monthly assistance payments. In addition, the Petitioner was granted retroactive sustenance payments from the date of her initial application. The Petitioner alleges that the Assistance Payments Manual promulgated by the department and used by its staff members is an invalid rule in that it fits the definition of a rule in Section 120.52(14), F.S., and has not been formally adopted through rulemaking proceedings as required by Chapter 120, F.S. The department acknowledges that the Assistance Payments Manual has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S., the Administrative Procedure Act. This case went to final hearing on December 21 , 1977, at Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner did not appear at that proceeding. Testimony was taken from Cheri Beck, a payments supervisor for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Also, the deposition of Ms. Beck taken on December 19, 1977, was received into evidence. An additional deposition, that of Sylvia McElroy, another employee of the Respondent, was also received. After reviewing the submissions and the testimony received, it is the determination of the undersigned that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she is substantially affected by the alleged rule and has inadequate standing to maintain this proceeding. The crucial aspect of the Petitioner's circumstance is that although she was initially determined to be ineligible for assistance payments because of the restrictions in the Assistance Payments Manual, she was later granted eligibility and issued retroactive payments. Therefore at the time this matter went to hearing the Petitioner was not adversely affected by any determination of the Respondent based upon the use of their Assistance Payments Manual. The Petitioner has suffered no loss which can be attributed to the alleged rule. Without having adequately demonstrated that she is Substantially affected by the alleged rule, Petitioner is not entitled to a determination of its validity. The First District Court of Appeal considered this identical question in the case of Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Leroy Jerry, So.2d , (Case No. FF-303, Jan. 10, 1978). In that opinion the court determined that a Prisoner incarcerated in a State institution was not entitled to a determination of the validity of an alleged rule Since he had not demonstrated he had suffered any hardship because of the operation of the rule. In a similar fashion the Petitioner here has had any possible loss of benefits restored to her by the Respondent. She no longer has cause to receive a resolution of this Petition Pursuant to Section 120.56, F.S. It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the Petition is dismissed. Further, since the Petitioner has no standing to receive a determination of her Petition, no ruling is made on the Proposed findings submitted at the final hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Colbrunn, Esquire Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc. 128 W. Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32802 James Mahorner, Esquire Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedure Committee 120 Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ms. Liz Cloud Department of State 403 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Coyle is eligible for vocational rehabilitation benefits. The eligibility requirements for vocational rehabilitation benefits are set forth in both federal and state law. An individual is eligible when it is certified that: A physical or mental disability is present; A substantial handicap to employment exists; and Vocational rehabilitation services may reasonably be expected to render an individual fit to engage in gainful employment. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, there is no viable dispute that Coyle would not benefit from the receipt of vocational rehabilitation services, or that a documented physical disability does not exist. The real factual issue presented is whether Coyle has a substantial handicap to his employment. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders filed March 4 and March 15, 1983. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Michael L. Coyle, applied for vocational rehabilitation services on May 28, 1982. Coyle is a 46-year-old white male who is divorced with custody of his seven-year-old daughter. Coyle worked for 14 years as a printer/compositor for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. This job required that Coyle stand during his entire work day. Prior to working for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Coyle worked as an airline ticket clerk and supervised the loading of freight for an airline. These positions required that Coyle stand during much of his work day. When Coyle applied for vocational rehabilitation services, he was on medical leave from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on advice of his personal physician. This medical leave was for the purpose of alleviating pain in Coyle's left knee. This pain had become incapacitating. When Coyle applied for vocational rehabilitation services, his medical leave was almost over, and the condition in his left knee had not improved. Coyle's employer, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, had no positions available in which Coyle could work seated, and Coyle could not perform his duties as a printer/compositor while seated. Coyle was required to perform his duties while standing, and no opportunity existed for Coyle to be seated periodically during his work day. Coyle's application for vocational rehabilitation services was approved, and Coyle was certified as eligible on July 1, 1982. A rehabilitative plan was not prepared for Coyle by Coyle's counselor. Before a rehabilitative plan could becompleted, Coyle applied for additional benefits, to include transportation and maintenance costs. By this time, Coyle's medical studies were completed and their results available. The physicians reported that Coyle had a degenerative and chronic joint disease in his left knee; however, Coyle was able to work if he took aspirin and alleviated the strain on his knee by not standing. Based upon these reports, Coyle's request for maintenance and transportation costs were denied. Based upon the reevaluation of the medical opinions, the agency determined that Coyle was not eligible to receive any vocational rehabilitation benefits. Coyle was notified of the agency's decision to terminate his vocational rehabilitation benefits, and Coyle timely initiated administrative review of that determination. Coyle's records do not reflect that Coyle had applied for SSI and food stamps. Coyle receives some money as an insurance payment for his disability from private insurance maintained through his former employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Michael L. Coyle's basic vocational rehabilitation benefits should be reinstated retroactive to the date of original termination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 April, 1983.
The Issue Whether the Respondent Entrust Recovery Corporation violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed and whether Respondent Patrick C. Simone violated Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Phillip Hobbs (Hobbs), is the president of Respondent, Entrust Recovery Corporation (Entrust). Mr. Hobbs holds a Class "C" Private Investigator license; a Class "R" Recovery Agency license; a Class "E" Recovery Agent license; a Class "RI" Recovery School Instructor license; and a Class "RS" Recovery School/Training Facility license. Respondent, Patrick Simone (Simone) did not have a Class "E" Recovery Agent license or a Class "EE" Recovery Agent Intern license on January 13, 1995. On January 13, 1995, Simone was employed as a private investigator for Entrust. On January 13, 1995, at the request of Hobbs, Simone went to Jeff Paull's (Paull) residence to determine if Paull's car was there. Simone advised Hobbs by two-way radio that a white Toyota was parked in the driveway. Hobbs told Simone to wait for him to get to the residence. When Hobbs arrived, he parked his car approximately 100 feet west of Paull's house. Hobbs told Simone to go and knock on the door. Simone walked up to Paull's door and knocked to see if anyone was home. Paull came to the door, identified himself as Jeff Paull and came out of the house to speak with Simone. Simone identified himself as a representative of World Omni and told Paull that he was there to take the car, that he needed to talk to Paull about the car payments, and that World Omni would like to talk to him. Simone, using a cellular telephone, dialed World Omni's number and gave the telephone to Paull to talk to World Omni. After Paull talked to World Omni, he tossed the car keys to Simone. Paull went back into his house to get his own portable telephone and made another telephone call. While the transaction was taking place between Paull and Simone, Hobbs was down the street with a pair of binoculars and a two-way radio trying to find out what was going on. Based on the location of Paull's house, the front door and courtyard are visible only from directly in front of Paull's house. The front door area is not visible from the west because of the foliage and construction of the house. Thus, Hobbs could not have observed the interactions between Paull and Simone as he testified at the final hearing. Because Hobbs was trying to monitor the transaction from a distance with a two-way radio, he could not hear what was being said at the time it was being said and relied on Simone to tell him what was going on when Paull was not there. After Paull gave Simone the keys, Paull asked Simone if he would give him a ride to his luncheon appointment. Simone agreed to do so. Paull went back into the house to finish dressing and someone banged on the door while he was getting ready. When Paull went back outside, only Simone was present. Simone took the white Toyota and dropped Paull off on his way back to Hobbs' office. During the scenario between Paull and Simone, Hobbs did not approach Paull to speak with Paull and did not identify himself to Paul as the repossessor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Patrick C. Simone violated Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, that Entrust Recovery Corporation violated Section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine of $150 be imposed on Patrick C. Simone, and that an administrative fine of $500 be imposed on Entrust Recovery Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 17th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-4238 & 95-4239 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6-9: Accepted in substance. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found based on the finding that Simone told Paull that he was there to take the car. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Hobbs had directed Simone to see if the car was there. Paragraph 7: Rejected that Hobbs could observe and hear what was going on, otherwise accepted that Hobbs parked down the street from the house. Paragraphs 8-9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted that Paull gave up his car. Rejected that he was given the option to wait until Monday as not supported by the record. Paull stated that he asked Omni to wait until Monday but the evidence does not support a finding that Omni agreed to wait until Monday. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station Number 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0205 Mark A. Kamilar, Esquire Penthouse I, United States Justice Building 155 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Department of Education (“the Department”) committed one or more unlawful employment practices against Petitioner (“Ms. Spradlin”) by discriminating against her based on race.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Spradlin worked from 2006 to 2010 as a psychological specialist at a facility known as Sunland in Marianna, Florida. Ms. Spradlin is Caucasian. During a portion of the time that Ms. Spradlin was at Sunland, Tawana Gilbert worked there as a human service administrator. Ms. Gilbert is African-American. Ms. Spradlin and Ms. Gilbert did not work closely together, but they served on the same interdisciplinary team and worked with the same residents. Ms. Gilbert’s only knowledge of Ms. Spradlin was through the documentation that Ms. Spradlin submitted to the interdisciplinary team. Ms. Gilbert left Sunland in approximately November of 2009, and began working for the Department as a unit supervisor for a vocational rehabilitation services unit in Marianna, Florida. Vocational rehabilitation assists people by providing them with services that enable them to obtain and maintain gainful employment. During the time period relevant to the instant case, the Marianna unit had 10 staff members and served five counties. Of those 10 staff members, five were counselors and one was the unit supervisor. At some point after Ms. Gilbert left Sunland, Ms. Spradlin saw an advertisement for an entry level vocational rehabilitation counselor position at the Marianna unit. Ms. Spradlin applied for the position and was hired in 2010. In March or April of 2011, Ms. Gilbert invited all of her coworkers to a special event at her church. Ms. Gilbert asked her coworkers with children if their child would like to participate in a program that was to be part of the festivities. Ms. Spradlin said that her daughter was willing to participate, and Ms. Gilbert typed out the words that Ms. Spradlin’s daughter was to recite during the program. When it was time for Ms. Spradlin’s daughter to recite her part, she became nervous, and her grandmother read the part. Following this event, Ms. Spradlin asserts that Ms. Gilbert’s attitude toward her changed and that the unlawful employment practices alleged in her Charge of Discrimination began. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Interviews for Senior Counselor Positions There were two openings for senior vocational rehabilitation counselors at the Marianna unit in October of 2012.1/ When the Department is considering applicants for a particular position, it utilizes a three-person panel to conduct interviews and score the applicants. After the interviews, the three-person panel reaches a consensus as to each applicant’s scores, and the Department uses a standardized matrix to rank each applicant. The panel for the two senior vocational rehabilitation counselor openings consisted of Allison Gill, the Department’s area supervisor; Michael Nobles, the former supervisor of the Marianna unit; and Ms. Gilbert. Ms. Gill and Mr. Nobles are Caucasian. Of the five people who interviewed for the two openings, Ramonia Robinson earned the highest score, a 72. With regard to Ms. Robinson’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert testified as follows: Ms. Robinson, she was a current employee there. She was an entry-level counselor, had been for many, many years. She was there prior to my hiring with VR, so I was familiar with her work history. And she was very thorough, very detailed, very flexible, and very unemotionally involved with her cases. So she, in conducting her cases and case management, was awesome. And she was very knowledgeable about the questions that were being asked. She had had a long history of experience with case management, providing services to individuals with disabilities, and just adequately managing her caseload. She did very well on her interview. Ms. Spradlin received the second highest score, a 56. Keith Sutton, an outside applicant, received a score of 55. When two applicants’ scores are within one point of each other, the Department bases the ultimate hiring decision on reference checks. Ms. Gilbert contacted Mr. Sutton’s references and received positive feedback about him. As for Mr. Sutton’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert provided the following testimony: Q: What about Mr. Sutton’s experience, resume was notable to you in the interview process? A: Well, he had his degree. It’s directly related to the field of counseling. He had a wealth of experience in the counseling field. He came to us from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, which is Sunland, where he had a year there, and he met at least the minimum qualifications. He was very – his application was very detailed, and it identified precisely his experience based on his ability to – or his experience with providing counseling, providing services for those with disabilities. And he had a long history from where he had previously worked in the field of counseling. Q: Okay, so Mr. Sutton achieved a Master’s in Counseling in 2011, is that correct, according to his application? A: Yes. Q: And that’s directly related to the position; is that correct? A: Yes, that’s correct. Q: And he had experience as a master’s level therapist? A: Yes. Q: Is that accurate, according to the application? A: Yes. He worked for Florida Therapy as a master’s level therapist, where he was expected to provide counseling, psychotherapy to children, adults and their families, but doing so on an independent basis. That demonstrated he was very flexible, detailed oriented and [had] the ability to function independently. Because she was Ms. Spradlin’s supervisor at the time, Ms. Gilbert acted as her reference and did not recommend her for a senior counselor position. In explaining her reasoning, Ms. Gilbert testified that: Ms. Spradlin was difficult to work with and she was very negative. She had several participant complaints during the span of [] that year. In her first year coming in, she was very challenging, she did not want to accept constructive criticism from me as the unit supervisor. She did not want very – she wanted very little feedback from me based on her performance. Several participant complaints, calling me directly, contacting the ombudsman, faxing me complaints based on their interaction with Ms. Spradlin, how they felt that they were being treated unfairly, they did not agree with her tone from time to time. She was not at all culturally sensitive to some of our participants. She was insubordinate. She would – there were times she would just leave the unit because things – conditions were unfavorable to her. Ms. Gilbert submitted her recommendation to the Department’s area director, and Mr. Sutton was ultimately offered a senior counselor position. Mr. Sutton is currently the supervisor of the Marianna unit. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin was not promoted because of her race or any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding that Ms. Robinson and Mr. Sutton were more qualified for the openings. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of applicants for the two openings discussed above. In May of 2016, Ms. Spradlin applied for another senior counselor position in the Marianna unit. The interview panel for this opening consisted of Ms. Gilbert and two other Department employees, Evelyn Langmaid and Rebecca Stevens. Ms. Langmaid and Ms. Stevens are Caucasian. Ms. Gilbert did not supervise Ms. Langmaid or Ms. Stevens, and she did not attempt to influence their decision-making. Georgia Britt received the highest score from the interview panel and was offered the senior counselor position. Ms. Langmaid described Ms. Britt’s interview as follows: She just came in and every answer we’d or every question that we gave her she was just right on with the answers and [was] hitting the points on the – because we have sort of like a little sheet that we can look for certain points that we’re looking for answers, and she was just right on every point, and was very, very knowledgeable of what was going on. Ms. Spradlin had obtained a certified rehabilitation counseling certification in October of 2014, and Ms. Britt lacked that certification. However, Ms. Britt’s other credentials bolstered her application. For instance, she has a bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education and a master’s degree in counseling. Ms. Britt also had relevant work experience. When she applied for the senior counselor position, Ms. Britt was employed at Sunland as a behavior specialist working with adults with developmental disabilities. Ms. Britt wrote in her application that she had been able to “work with all different types of individuals at all intellectual levels” via her position at Sunland. Prior to working at Sunland, Ms. Britt had worked in a children’s psychiatric hospital in Dothan, Alabama. That position also gave her an opportunity to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Ms. Britt wrote on her application that her position at the hospital required her to engage in some counseling and that she had to use counseling skills in order to obtain psychiatric histories and other information. Ms. Britt’s interview bolstered her application. According to Ms. Langmaid, Ms. Britt “blew it out of the water. She was fantastic on the interview.” Ms. Gilbert was also very complimentary of Ms. Britt’s interview: Q: What about Ms. Britt stood out to you and the panel? A: Her ability to respond to the questions as they were being asked. At that time, we were transitioning to where we were asking more emotional [intelligence] questions where – to identify a counselor’s ability to emotionally manage cases and refrain from being emotionally involved with that case. So she answered the questions. It’s on ones that can give a thorough answer based on the circumstance that occurred, the actions that took place and the results of the question. Q: Okay. A: She was really, really thorough with her answers. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin did not receive the promotion because of her race or due to any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding Ms. Britt was more qualified for the opening. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of Ms. Britt. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Hostile Work Environment Allegations Ms. Spradlin made several allegations during the final hearing that she was subjected to a hostile work environment during her time with the Marianna unit.2/ For example, in October of 2010, Ms. Spradlin exposed at least part of her posterior to a coworker in the Marianna unit in order to demonstrate the severity of a sunburn. Ms. Gilbert did not learn of that incident until another incident was reported to her on May 2, 2011. That day, Ms. Spradlin was seated in an office within the Marianna unit when a female coworker got very close to Ms. Spradlin and “twerked” in her face. Ms. Spradlin states that she placed her hands on the coworkers posterior and playfully pushed her away. However, the coworker reported to Ms. Gilbert that Ms. Spradlin had pinched her posterior. Upon learning of both incidents, Ms. Gilbert discussed them with Ms. Spradlin and conferred with the Department’s labor relations unit on formulating a proper course of action. With input from the labor relations unit, Ms. Gilbert issued a counseling memorandum to Ms. Spradlin on October 4, 2011.3/ The counseling memorandum4/ read in pertinent part as follows: You are being issued a Counseling Memorandum for your violation of Rule 60L- 36.005(2)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Conduct unbecoming a public employee. On October 12, 2010, you signed the Department’s Acknowledgement Form stating you received copies of the policies and rules of the Department. Please be aware that you are expected to abide by all Standards of Conduct as stated in 60L- 36.005, F.A.C. On May 2, 2011, you violated the following rule and policy: Rule 60L-36.005(2)(f)(1), F.A.C., requires that “Employees shall conduct themselves, on and off the job, in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to the state. Employees shall be courteous, considerate, respectful, and prompt in dealing with and serving the public and co-workers.” On May 2, 2011, it was reported by one employee that you pulled your pants down exposing your buttocks and “mooned” that employee. Another employee informed me that on that same day you pinched her on her buttocks. After I was told about these incidents that day, I counseled you and informed you that this was inappropriate behavior and it was explained that your actions were unacceptable. This type of conduct is not conducive to a satisfactory work environment. Your conduct has adversely impacted the morale and efficiency of your unit and the Department, is detrimental to the best interests of the state and Department, and adversely affects your effectiveness with the Department, as well as your ability to continue to perform your job. This behavior must cease immediately. Should you continue conduct unbecoming a public employee, disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal may be taken. Ms. Spradlin signed the counseling memorandum on October 4, 2011, and added the following comments: These two incidents happened on [sic] different persons. The incident w/ “mooning” was with [a] coworker after I incurred a severe sunburn. It was done only to show my burns not to offend her. She sobbed – I was not wearing pants – skirt instead. On the second occasion w/co-worker E.R. she put her buttocks in my face, playing around, & I pinched it as if to express my willingness to play as well. It was provoked – not done in an offensive manner. I understand that this type of behavior is not accepted in my work environment. They were done in a playful uplifting manner, not intentional. However, I will refrain from this behavior as I have obviously offended my colleagues. Another allegation of disparate treatment concerned an incident with a Department client named B.H., who Ms. Spradlin assisted with enrolling in nursing school. B.H. arrived at the Marianna unit one day without an appointment and reported that he wanted to do something other than nursing. Ms. Spradlin asserts that B.H. got aggressive when his requested changes could not be accomplished immediately. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that she became afraid, threatened to call 9-1-1, and managed to get past B.H. and into the hallway outside her office. Ms. Gilbert heard the commotion and called the police. By the time the police arrived at the Marianna unit, B.H. was very calm, and Ms. Gilbert concluded there had been no need to call law enforcement. While Ms. Spradlin asserts that she became an object of ridicule in the Marianna office for overreacting, Ms. Gilbert asserts that she was ridiculed for failing to give the address of the Marianna office when she called 9-1-1. As another example of disparate treatment, Ms. Spradlin cites an incident on November 14, 2013, involving a cigarette butt. Ms. Spradlin was in Ms. Gilbert’s office and dropped a cigarette butt into a trashcan. According to Ms. Spradlin, Ms. Gilbert demanded that she remove the cigarette butt and forced Ms. Spradlin to search through used tissues for the cigarette butt. Ms. Gilbert acknowledged that she asked Ms. Spradlin to remove the cigarette butt from the trashcan, but she credibly denied berating Ms. Spradlin or yelling at her. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Spradlin was able to quickly remove the butt from the trashcan and was not upset about having to do so. Ms. Spradlin made several other allegations about how Ms. Gilbert gave African-American employees in the Marianna unit preferential treatment. For example, Ms. Spradlin alleges that she was required to handle more cases and incur more travel than her African-American coworkers. With regard to her travel reimbursements, Ms. Spradlin alleged that Ms. Gilbert refused to account for all the miles she traveled. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that Ms. Gilbert subjected her to disparate treatment by requiring her to maintain more documentation of her daily activities, inundating her with e-mails inquiring about the status of her work, and being less lenient regarding Ms. Spradlin’s use of flex and leave time. Ms. Gilbert testified that she has never denied a request for annual leave and that she approved the majority of Ms. Spradlin’s requests for flex time, even though Ms. Spradlin did not follow the proper procedure for making such requests. As for the other allegations mentioned above, Ms. Gilbert credibly testified that she did not subject Ms. Spradlin to any disparate treatment. Finally, Ms. Spradlin alleges that Ms. Gilbert unfairly administered a system by which counselors within the Marianna unit shared their successful cases with African- American counselors who had fewer successful cases. This system was implemented because counselors within the Marianna unit were expected to have a certain number of successful cases. Ms. Gilbert credibly denied that the system was administered unfairly: Q: Ms. Gilbert, do you ever ask counselors to donate their successful cases or case numbers to other counselor? A: I never asked counselors specifically to do that. I did discuss it with the unit, with our team as an option. Q: Okay, and why would that be an option they may want to do? A: Well, the way Vocational Rehabilitation operates is a person has to be on their job a minimum – a minimum of three months, okay, 90 days, to consider that person as successfully rehabilitated. And that was a measurement. That was an expectation on each counselor’s performance evaluation, that they had to get so many successful rehabs within one year. So someone that’s being hired and coming to Vocational Rehabilitation in the middle of the year, they don’t have that opportunity to monitor that person for 90 days, if they don’t already have someone that’s in that employment status ready to begin monitoring. So it’s difficult. But I did not want that to be a negative reflection of a counselor that’s really trying and that’s working their caseload and trying to get their successful rehabs. So I would ask counselors once they’ve received all of their rehabs and they close enough people successfully that allows them to get the most maximum score that they can get on their evaluation, I would ask them if they wanted to, share those rehabs with someone that’s probably a new counselor or that’s just having a difficult time with obtaining their successful rehabs. Q: Okay. And so Mr. Sutton’s first year, might he have received some successful numbers donated to him from other counselors? A: That is a possibility. Q: Okay. Did Ms. Spradlin ever receive any successful numbers donated to her when she had a lower number? A: Yes. * * * Q: Okay. And so that number of successes or successful rehabilitations is important to counselors? A: Absolutely. Q: Because they are – are they evaluated on that each year in their yearly performance evaluation? A: Yes. Each level of counselor, if you’re an entry-level counselor, your first year you may be expected to get five. Those numbers are prorated. So the cutoff period is last business day of June, so if you have a new counselor that starts in February or March, they’re at a disadvantage, they don’t have the time. Time works against them. But if they are involved with their cases and they are trying to work their cases, I felt that it was only reasonable to assist them. * * * Q: Okay, so you said that Ms. Spradlin would have received a donation of successful cases maybe early on in her career? A: Yes. Q: Did she donate cases once she became a more proficient counselor? A: I’m pretty sure she did. Q: And did you specifically ask her to donate cases to any particular employee? A: No. Ms. Spradlin resigned from the Department on August 10, 2016. There is no sufficiently persuasive evidence to support Ms. Spradlin’s disparate treatment claims. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Spradlin was not subjected to any disparate treatment during her tenure in the Marianna unit.
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 Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 2018.
