The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and because it exceeds Respondent’s rulemaking authority; and Whether an interpretation of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, constitutes an unpromulgated “rule.”
Findings Of Fact The first 12 findings of fact are facts contained in the Stipulation: Prior to June 2005, Petitioner, Juan Cuellar, Luis Garcia, and Gerardo Quintero, received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Petitioners applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificates of Competency. Based on the Certificates of Competency, the Department issued each Petitioner a registered contractor’s license bearing license numbers RG291103667 (Mr. Cuellar), RF11067267 (Mr. Garcia), and RF11067268 (Mr. Quintero). Petitioners each applied for a certificate of authority for their respective businesses, Cuellar Construction and Drywall (Mr. Cuellar), A.P.A. Plumbing Corp. (Mr. Garcia), and Q Plumbing Services Corp. (Mr. Quintero). Based on the fact the Certificates of Competency and the registered contractor’s licenses had been granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to Cuellar Construction and Drywall, QB 41342; APA Plumbing Corp., QB 42763; and Q Plumbing Services Corp., QB 42825. At the time the Department issued Petitioners their registered contractor’s licenses and subsequent certificates of authority, it did so based solely on the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency presented by Petitioners and the only information submitted to it. The parties stipulate that Petitioners were not entitled to their registered contractor’s licenses and certificates of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency were not valid certificates. At the time of their applications to the Department, Petitioners were not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. The Department filed Administrative Complaints against Petitioners for the suspension or revocation of their licenses based on violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Administrative Complaints”). (All references to Sections of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as they relate to the Administrative Complaint are to the 2005 version. All other references to Florida Statutes are to the 2007 version). Each Petitioner challenged the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero). On December 13, 2007, the undersigned, as the Administrative Law Judge to whom the cases had been assigned, issued a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero), determining that Petitioners violated Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred collectively as the “Recommended Orders”). The “Recommendation” in each of the Recommended Orders was, except for the name of the Respondent, the same as the following: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. Based upon the foregoing, and the fact that no final decision has been entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), Petitioners are facing the possible revocation or voluntary relinquishment of their licenses (an adverse impact whether they are “entitled” to the licenses or not), continued defense against the Administrative Complaints, and the payment of the cost incurred by the Department in prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Should the Board revoke Petitioners’ licenses, they will also be precluded from re-applying for licensure for a period of five years pursuant to Section 489.129(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioners face the same consequence even if they voluntarily relinquish their license pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.017(3)(a). The adverse consequences of the possible final action on the Administrative Complaints which they face stem in part from a finding that they have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides the following: The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate, registration, or certificate of authority, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying agent responsible under 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts: Obtaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by fraud or misrepresentation. . . . . Petitioners were found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision adopted by the Board in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, an existing rule which Petitioners have challenged in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Existing Rule”), which provides: Material false statements or information submitted by an applicant for certification or registration, or submitted for renewal of certification or registration, or submitted for any reissuance of certification or registration, shall constitute a violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), F.S., and shall result in suspension or revocation of the certificate or registration. Essentially the same conclusions of law were reached in the Recommended Orders concerning the application of the Challenged Existing Rule (in paragraphs numbered “23” through “25” or “25” through 27” of the Recommended Orders): While Respondent has not been specifically charged with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, the Department cited the Rule, which contains the following interpretation of what constitutes "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation" in violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in support of Count I of the Administrative Complaint: . . . . It is the Department’s position, that despite the fact that Respondent did not commit “fraud” in obtaining his license and a certificate of authority for [the business] and, in fact, did not knowingly submit false information to the Department in obtaining his license and the certificate of competency, “[m]aterial false statements or information” were nonetheless submitted by Respondent in support thereof. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, in defining what constitutes the act of "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation” eliminates the need for the Department to prove any knowledge on the part of Respondent that he has made a material misrepresentation or any intent on the part of Respondent to rely upon a material misrepresentation. All that is required is proof that a material representation was made and that the representation was false. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Challenged Existing Rule as being an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners were also found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision advanced by the Department during the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints. Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, provides that the following act constitutes grounds for which disciplinary action may be taken: (h) Attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice a profession by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentation, or through an error of the department or the board. (Emphasis added). The Department’s argument concerning the appropriate interpretation and application of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, advanced in the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints, was advanced in paragraphs 24 through 26 of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order: Obtaining a certificate or registration in error as a result of a misrepresentation made during the application process is conduct proscribed by Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued a registration by error of the Department. To be issued a registration by the Department, an applicant must submit along with an application for registration, a copy of the applicant’s validly issued competency card from a local government licensing board . . . . Respondent submitted a fake competency card that appeared to be validly issued by the Miami Compliance Office. . . . If the Department had known Respondent’s Competency Card was fake and Respondents’ answer to the attest statement was false, the Department would not have issued Respondent a registration. Thus, since the Department did not have truthful and accurate information, the registration issued to Respondent was in error. The Department’s interpretation was described and accepted in the Recommended Orders (in paragraphs numbered “29” through “31” or “31” through 33”, in the Recommended Orders), as follows: In support of this alleged violation, the Department has argued that Respondent obtained his license “through an error of the department . . . .” That “error” was the Department’s reliance upon an improperly issued Miami-Dade building business Certificate of Competency. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that the Department issued the Respondent’s license in “error.” While it is true that Respondent did not intentionally cause or even know of the error, the Department reasonably takes the position that Respondent obtained his license nonetheless as a result of this error and that is all that Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The Department has proved clearly and convincingly that Respondent violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes [requires]. Although not specifically quoted in their Petition in this case, Petitioners have quoted what they believe is the unpromulgated rule of the Board which they are challenging in this case in paragraph 60 of Petitioner’s Proposed Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Language”): . . . . Essentially, the Board applies the following unadopted rule when applying Section 455.227(1)(h): Disciplinary action may be taken pursuant to Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, where an individual attempts to obtain a license through an error of the department even if the individual did not have knowledge of the error. As of the date of the final hearing of this matter, the Board had taken no action on the Recommended Orders.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department), in implementing a workforce reduction that resulted in layoffs and demotions for employees, should have adopted by rulemaking, policies related to compensation reductions that occurred during the workforce reduction.
Findings Of Fact In 1999, a funding shortfall at the Department of Labor and Employment Security resulted in implementation of a workforce reduction plan. Petitioners Altamese Thompson and Sue Ezell were employees of the Department with permanent status in the Career Service system and whose employment and compensation were substantially affected by the Department’s workforce reduction program. Petitioner Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, represented the employees on collective bargaining issues affected in the workforce reduction. AFSCME members’ employment and compensation were substantially affected by the Department’s workforce reduction program. The 1999 workforce reduction was not the Department’s first experience with employee layoffs. In previous reductions, Department policy, set forth in LES Manual 1101.1.1.1 (October 1, 1996) was to retain, at existing salaries, as many employees as funding permitted. The Department policy was not adopted as an administrative rule. When the Department began to consider the workforce reduction of mid-1999, the Department apparently decided to increase the number of retained employees by reducing the salaries of workers who accepted "voluntary" demotions in lieu of layoff. By issuance of a "Change Notice" to LES Manual 1101.1.1.1, dated May 14, 1999, the Department redefined voluntary demotion to include "demotions requested by associates in lieu of layoff during workforce reduction pursuant to Chapter 60K-17, F.A.C." The revision also set forth a formula by which the compensation paid to employees who accepted voluntary demotion in lieu of transfer would be reduced. The change in the Department policy was not adopted as an administrative rule. Chapter 60K-17, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the rules applicable to reduction of Career Service employees through the layoff process. The rule essentially establishes what is generally identified as the "bumping" procedure utilized by state agencies when employee levels are reduced. Rule 60K-17.004(3)(j), Florida Administrative Code, states in part, "[w]ithin 7 calendar days after receiving the notice of layoff, the employee shall have the right to request a demotion or reassignment. " Rule 60K-17.004(3)(p), Florida Administrative Code, states that "[a]n employee who accepts a voluntary demotion in lieu of layoff and is subsequently promoted to a position in the same class in the same agency from which the employee is demoted in lieu of layoff, shall be promoted with permanent status." Chapter 60K-17, Florida Administrative Code, does not prohibit salary reductions implemented as part of a voluntary demotion. Rule 60K-4.007, Florida Administrative Code, governs "demotion appointments" in the career service system. The rule states that a "demotion appointment" includes assignment to a job class having a "lower maximum salary or having the same or higher maximum salary but a lower level of responsibility. Rule 60K-2.004, Florida Administrative Code, governs salary determinations upon appointment to employment. Rule 60K- 2.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, states, "[a]n employee who is given a demotion appointment in accordance with Chapter 60K-4, F.A.C., may be demoted with or without a reduction in base rate of pay. " Rule 60K-9.005, Florida Administrative Code, addresses a Career Service employee’s right to appeal employment actions to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Generally, an employee who has attained permanent status in the Career Service System can appeal employment actions to the Public Employees Relations Commission. However, Rule 60K-9.005(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, states than "[a]n employee who receives a reduction in pay, a demotion, or a transfer shall waive all rights to appeal such action if the employee has signed a written statement that the action is voluntary." By certified letters dated May 24, 1999, Petitioners Thompson and Ezell were advised that "[d]ue to impending budget cuts" the Department was reducing the number of positions in the Department’s Division of Jobs and Benefits (where Petitioners Thompson and Ezell worked) and that "[r]egretfully, you will be adversely affected by this work force reduction on June 30, 1999, at the close of business." The May 24 letter included a form titled "STATEMENT OF CHOICE OF OPTIONS DUE TO LAYOFF SITUATION" which set forth available jobs and included an option allowing the employee to select a layoff rather than the job demotion. The form included a signature line that stated, "I understand that by selecting demotion as an option, I am requesting a voluntary demotion in lieu of layoff, and my pay upon such voluntary demotion will be subject to the newly revised Section 1101.1.1.1.9d of the LES Personnel Manual." The evidence fails to establish the content of Section 1101.1.1.1.9d of the revised LES Personnel Manual. The documents entered into evidence at the hearing are identified as 1101.1.1.1. There is no subsection 9d. Subsection (c)2.c. addresses pay upon voluntary demotion and states as follows: Associates requesting voluntary demotions must have their base rate of pay reduced by one-half (1/2) of the percentage/salary increase received upon promotion and/or reassignment. For example, if an associate received a 10 percent promotional increase, his/her base rate of pay must be reduced by 5 percent. Permanent career service associates who have not had a promotional increase will have their base rate reduced by 5 percent. The Division Director/Commission Chairman equivalent has authority to take final action provided, however, that any variations must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of Administration for review prior to final action. This provision also applies to demotions to classes that are higher or lower than the classes held prior to promotion and/or reassignment. Ms. Thompson noted her preferences as to the available jobs positions and signed the form. Ms. Ezell noted her preferences as to the available jobs positions and signed the form, but wrote a notation on the form indicating her disagreement with the situation, in part stating, "I am not voluntarily requesting demotion. I have absolutely no other choice after 27 years. A pay reduction should not occur. " At hearing, both Ms. Thompson and Ms. Ezell suggested that being forced to accept a demotion and pay reduction in lieu of total layoff did not present an entirely voluntary choice. There is no evidence that the Department provided copies of the cited Personnel Manual revision directly to affected employees either before or after the May 24 letters were issued. There is no evidence that either Ms. Thompson or Ms. Ezell saw the revised Personnel Manual prior to signing the "STATEMENT OF CHOICE" forms. During the spring of 1999, the Division’s Director circulated a publication entitled "Friday Fax" to employees of the Department’s Division of Jobs and Benefits. The "Friday Fax" dated March 19, 1999 indicates that an employee demoted as part of the pending reduction in force would retain their current salary. This reflects the existing policy of the Department that had been applied in prior workforce reductions. There is no credible evidence that the Division Director was explicitly authorized to restate the Department policy in the March 19, 1999 Friday Fax. There is evidence that the Department executives were considering the possibility of salary reductions during the ongoing planning for the workforce reduction. By the following week, a new Division Director had been appointed. By April 2, 1999, publication of "Friday Fax" was suspended. A new publication "Just The Facts. . ." began to be issued by the Department’s Office of Communications and was circulated to agency personnel. On May 24, 1999, the same day that the workforce reduction letters were mailed to Petitioners Thompson and Ezell, an issue of "Just The Facts" was published which stated that demotions in lieu of layoff would incur salary reductions, and referenced the revised LES Personnel Manual section as "1101.1.1.1 9.d.(1)(6)(c)2.c."
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a contractor engaged in highway construction and holds a certificate of qualification with Respondent. Action pending in DOAH Case No. 84-2538 could result in the suspension of Petitioner's certificate if an alleged contract delinquency is proven. Section 337.16, F.S., delegates to Respondent the authority to revoke or suspend a certificate when contract delinquency is demonstrated. This statute provides: No contractor shall be qualified to bid when an investigation by the highway engineer discloses that such contractor is delinquent on a previously awarded contract, and in such case his certificate of qualification shall be suspended or revoked. The department may suspend, for a specified period of time, or revoke for good cause any certificate of qualification. The purpose of the above statute is to enforce timely completion of construction work and to prevent a contractor from taking on new work which might require diversion of resources from the delinquent job, thus lessening the contractor's ability to catch up. Rule 14-23.01, F.A.C. was promulgated by Respondent to implement its authority to suspend or revoke contractor certificates for job delinquency. Because contractors charged with delinquency frequently catch-up or cure the delinquency during the pendency of administrative proceedings, 1/ Respondent's statutory authority to enforce construction schedules was easily thwarted. To "put teeth" in its ability to deter job delays, Respondent amended its delinquency rule in 1982 to provide after- the-fact certificate suspension where a contractor was proven to have been delinquent in its progress on a construction project. This provision, which is challenged here, states as follows: (b) REINSTATEMENT. Any contractor disqualified under the above provisions shall be disqualified from further bidding and shall be disapproved as a contractor until the delinquency is cured. Where a contractor cures the alleged delinquency during the course of administrative proceedings, the Department may suspend the qualification to bid and disapprove as a subcontractor for the number of days the contractor is administratively determined to be delinquent. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the last sentence which it contends amounts to unauthorized punishment since the deficiency sought to be corrected by the statute no longer exists. However, the provision would arguably have some deterrent force since contractors would recognize that suspension could not be avoided merely by requesting formal proceedings 2/ and counting on administrative delay to render the delinquency issue moot.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a janitor with Respondent because of his handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lee, was hired by Respondent in August 1994 as a custodial worker at the Tallahassee Mall in Tallahassee, Florida. As a janitor Petitioner's duties included bending, stooping, and lifting. He was assigned to zone 3 in the Mall. Up until 1996, when Petitioner was injured, Petitioner received good evaluations on his job performance. Indeed Petitioner was very proud of the quality of his work and took special care to do his job well. Sometime prior to May 20, 1996, Petitioner, while at work and in the scope of his employment, stepped on a set of stairs which were not properly attached to a stage in the Tallahassee Mall. The steps slipped causing Petitioner's feet to come out from under him. Petitioner fell flat on his back. As a consequence Petitioner suffered a permanent back injury for which he received workers' compensation. The injury impairs his ability to work and therefore is a handicap. Around May 20, 1996, Petitioner was released by his doctor and was given orders for light duty with no bending, stooping, or heavy lifting. Petitioner gave these orders to his supervisor, Mr. Navin, when he returned to work on May 20, 1996. Respondent had light duty work available which Petitioner was qualified to perform. However, Respondent did not assign Petitioner to light duty work, but changed his work area from zone 3 to zone 1. Zone 1 is located at the front entrance to the mall and requires more work to maintain. Petitioner attempted to perform his duties but could only work for 3 1/2 hours before being overcome by pain from his injury. Petitioner could not work the next four working days because of the aggravation of his injury. On May 28, 1996, after returning to work, Petitioner was again given full duty work. Petitioner attempted to perform his custodial duties for about 2 weeks. However, the pain from his injury was so severe he again requested light duty work. Petitioner's supervisor asked Petitioner to bring him another notice from his doctor. Petitioner's doctor faxed the supervisor a second notice and Petitioner was placed on light duty work. Once Petitioner was placed on light duty work, the mall manager, Mr. Renninger, followed Petitioner around the mall watching him all the time while he worked. On July 8, 1996, prior to the mall opening for business, Petitioner was helping one of the mall store owners with a problem. Such aid was part of Petitioner's job. The mall manager walked up to Petitioner and began to yell at him in a very rude and disrespectful manner. The manager would not listen to Petitioner's explanation of the event. The manager gave Petitioner a written disciplinary notice for his aid to the mall store owner. The manager continued to follow Petitioner around the mall while he worked. Sometime around August 15, 1996, the mall manager advised the mall's employees that they should take their respective vacations prior to October. Petitioner thought it would be a good time for him to take the 4-day vacation time he had accumulated during his employment with the mall. He could use the time to allow his back to heal more. On August 15, 1996, Petitioner requested vacation leave and vacation pay for the period beginning September 3, 1996 and ending September 9, 1996. Initially, the request was denied. Petitioner's supervisor felt he had missed too much work and been late too often. However, Petitioner had only been absent or late in relation to his back injury. Petitioner explained that fact to his supervisor. His supervisor agreed and approved Petitioner's vacation. Petitioner returned to work on August 10, 1996. An argument with the administrative assistant occurred when she refused to recognize that Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his vacation time. She was not going to turn in any time for him so that Petitioner could get paid while on vacation. Getting a paycheck was a serious matter to Petitioner, and Petitioner, understandably, became gruff with the administrative assistant. Petitioner only raised his voice at the administrative assistant. He was not abusive and did not curse at her. In fact, the administrative assistant yelled at Petitioner when he raised the subject of his pay "Now, before you start bitching." Petitioner called the headquarters of Respondent and confirmed he had vacation time and pay accrued. After this incident Petitioner was fired ostensibly for mistreating the administrative assistant. The administrative assistant, who was incorrect, was not terminated. The reason appears to be a pretext. Petitioner's pay was $5.35 per hour and he worked a 40-hour-work-week. After his termination, Petitioner actively sought employment but could not find any until September 1, 1997. At that time he began work for Tallahassee Community College as a custodial worker with light duties at a higher rate of pay. Petitioner's search for work was reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and awarding Petitioner backpay in the amount of $11,770.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2000.
